Abstract
Rapid field assessment indicators of ecological stress and disturbance may or may not reflect actual biological conditions. We tested the ability of rapidly assessed buffer quality to predict and classify wetland floristic quality across 106 sites in Oklahoma, USA. We used buffer zone metrics from a national-level rapid assessment tool (USA-RAM) to evaluate applicability at the state level. The rapid assessment relying on buffer quality did not relate predictably (linearly) with floristic quality, but the relationship improved after ecoregional stratification. Focusing on the Central Great Plains ecoregion with 55 wetlands sampled, we found 16 floristically intact sites and 13 floristically altered sites based on multivariate testing of the Floristic Quality Assessment Index and several component metrics. Distributions of buffer metrics across these sites were similar between the floristically intact and altered classes, suggesting potential for misclassification of wetland biological condition using rapid buffer assessment. Some of the disconnect may be attributed to bias in the buffer measurements and to using a national assessment protocol at the state level. Buffer metrics in the USA-RAM may offer little insight about wetland biological condition in some regions, and the use of such metrics should only complement direct bioassessments and not substitute for them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson JT, Davis CA (eds) (2013) Wetland techniques volume 3: applications and management. Springer Dordrecht, New York
Bowman MF, Somers KM (2006) Evaluating a novel Test Site Analysis (TSA) bioassessment approach. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:712–727
Bried JT, Jog SK, Dzialowski AR, Davis CA (2014) Potential vegetation criteria for identifying reference-quality wetlands in the southcentral United States. Wetlands 34:1159–1169
Crane JJ (2014) Evaluation of EPA Level I, II, and III assessments and the effects of land use on wetland communities. Thesis, Oklahoma State University
Curtin CG, Parker JP (2014) Foundations of resilience thinking. Conservation Biology 28:912–923
DeBerry DA, Chamberlain SJ, Matthews JW (2015) Trends in floristic quality assessment for wetland evaluation. Wetland Science & Practice 32(2):12–22
Dvorett D, Bidwell J, Davis C, DuBois C (2012) Developing a hydrogeomorphic wetland inventory: reclassifying National Wetlands Inventory polygons in Geographic Information Systems. Wetlands 32:83–93
Dvorett D, Bidwell J, Davis C, DuBois C (2013) Assessing natural and anthropogenic variability in wetland structure for two hydrogeomorphic riverine wetland subclasses. Environmental Management 52:1009–1022
Ervin GN, Herman BD, Bried JT, Holly DC (2006) Evaluating non-native species and wetland indicator status as components of wetlands floristic assessment. Wetlands 26:1114–1129
Ewing A-K, Hoagland B (2012) Development of floristic quality index approaches for wetland plant communities of Oklahoma. Final report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 and Oklahoma Conservation Commission, FY 2010, §104(b) (3), CD-00F074
Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2007) A review of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:543–560
Hoagland B (2000) The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist 45:385–420
Hobbs RJ (2016) Degraded or just different? Perceptions and value judgements in restoration decisions. Restoration Ecology 24:153–158
Kilgour BW, Somers KM, Matthews DE (1998) Using the normal range as a criterion for ecological significance in environmental monitoring and assessment. Ecoscience 5:542–550
Kutcher TE, Bried JT (2014) Adult Odonata conservatism as an indicator of freshwater wetland condition. Ecological Indicators 38:31–39
Mack JJ (2007) Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing iterations. Ecological Indicators 7:864–881
McLaughlin DL, Cohen MJ (2013) Realizing ecosystem services: wetland hydrological function along a gradient of ecosystem condition. Ecological Applications 23:1619–1631
Miller SJ, Wardrop DH (2006) Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6:313–326
Miller KM, Mitchell BR, McGill BJ (2016) Constructing multimetric indices and testing ability of landscape metrics to assess condition of freshwater wetlands in the Northeastern US. Ecological Indicators 66:143–152
Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:133–142
Parrish JD, Braun DP, Unnasch RS (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience 53:851–860
Peterson AC, Niemi GJ (2007) Evaluation of the Ohio rapid assessment method for wetlands in the western Great Lakes: an analysis using bird communities. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33(3):280–291
Reiss KC, Brown MT (2007) Evaluation of Florida palustrine wetlands: application of USEPA levels 1, 2, and 3 assessment methods. EcoHealth 4:206–218
Scozzafava M, Kentula ME, Riley E, Magee TK, Serenbetz G, Sumner R, Faulkner C, Price M (2011) The National Wetland Condition Assessment: national data on wetland quality to inform and improve wetlands protection. National Wetlands Newsletter 33(2):11–13
Sifneos JC, Herlihy AT, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2010) Calibration of the Delaware rapid assessment protocol to a comprehensive measure of wetland condition. Wetlands 30:1011–1022
Stapanian MA, Waite TA, Krzys G, Mack JJ, Micacchion M (2004) Rapid assessment indicator of wetland integrity as an unintended predictor of avian diversity. Hydrobiologia 520:119–126
Stapanian MA, Mack J, Adams JV, Gara B, Micacchion M (2013) Disturbance metrics predict a wetland vegetation index of biotic integrity. Ecological Indicators 24:120–126
Stein ED, Fetscher AE, Clark RP, Wiskind A, Grenier JL, Sutula M, Collins JN, Grosso C (2009) Validation of a wetland rapid assessment method: use of EPA’s level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and refinement. Wetlands 29:648–665
Stoddard JL (2005) Use of ecological regions in aquatic assessments of ecological condition. Environmental Management 34:61–70
Sutton-Grier AE, Kenney MA, Richardson CJ (2010) Examining the relationship between ecosystem structure and function using structural equation modelling: a case study examining denitrification potential in restored wetland soils. Ecological Modelling 221:761–768
USEPA (2011a) National Wetland Condition Assessment: USA-RAM Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-843-R12-001
USEPA (2011b) National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-02-014
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Wetland Program Development Grants. We thank Josh Crane for assisting with vegetation surveys, Bruce Hoagland for assigning conservatism values, Sofia Solano for producing the map figure, and Mike Bourdaghs and anonymous reviewers for helping us improve the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bried, J.T., Jog, S.K., Davis, C.A. et al. Rapid Buffer Assessment Fails to Predict and Classify Wetland Floristic Quality in Oklahoma. Wetlands 36, 799–805 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0786-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-016-0786-z