Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indicators and assessment methods for measuring the ecological integrity of semi-aquatic terrestrial environments

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our objective is to summarize scientific knowledge concerning assessment methods addressing ecological integrity in wetlands and riparian zones, with an emphasis on riparian areas. This article examines which indicators (abiotic parameters, species, faunistic and floristic communities and functional assemblages) are used, how they are applied (single or integrative indicator), and which assessment algorithms and models have been successful to date. Overall, our review shows that despite the relatively recent emergence of riparian ecology, riparian assessments are better developed than the wetland functional assessments currently employed. In general, it is recommended that useful methods be updated and cross-calibrated, that new rapid assessment methods provide reasonable levels of accuracy for a variety of users in a variety of situations, that assessment be developed for specific applications (with identified users), that uncertainty be explicitly acknowledged, that the policy implications of specific assessments methods be openly discussed, and that methods be formally tested for accuracy, cost and practicality. In addition, we offer a revised protocol for the effective and rapid assessment of functional integrity in riparian environments associated with freshwater ecosystems. This protocol encourages the use of terrestrialization, canopy development, biodiversity, microclimate and seston as integrative indicators of integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamus, P. R., 1992. Wetlands data sources and collection methods. In Statewide wetland strategies: a guide to protecting and managing the resource. World Wildlife Fund, Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 171–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamus, P. R. & K. Brandt, 1990. Impacts on quality of inland wetlands of the United States: a survey of indicators, techniques and applications of community-level biomonitoring data. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvalis, OR, U.S.A.: 406 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamus, P. R., L. T. Stockwell, E. J. Clairain Jr., M. E. Morrow, L. P. Rozas & R. D. Smith, 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) Vol. I: Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale. WRP-DE-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS, U.S.A.: 299 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainslie, W. B., 1994. Rapid wetland functional assessment: its role and utility in the regulatory arena. Wat. Air Soil Pollut. 77: 433–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon, P. J., J. Wilkenson & J. Martin, 1998. The application of SERCON (system for evaluating rivers for conservation) to a selection of rivers in Britain. Aquat. Cons. 8: 597–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, P. S. Maitland, T. A. Rowell & J. Davies, 1997. A system for evaluating rivers for conservation (SERCON): development, structure and function. In Boon, P. J. & D. L. Howell (eds), Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, Edinburgh: 299–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brevin, P. A., S. T. Buckton & S. J. Omerod, 1998. River habitat surveys and biodiversity in acid-sensitive rivers. Aquat. Cons. 8: 501–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, M. K., M. K. Schmid & W. L. Halvorson, 1997. Monitoring riparian ecosystems: an inventory of riparian habitat along Rincon Creek near Tucson, AZ. Technical Report No. 58. USGS, Tucson, AZ: 78 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M., 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Final Report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS: 101 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M., 1996. Assessing wetland functions using HGM. National Wetlands Newsletter 18: 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, M. M. & R. Rhinehardt, 1996. The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol. Applic. 6: 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman & J. F. Franklin, 1997. Harvesting effects onmicroclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecol. Applic. 7: 1188–1200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagney, J., 1993. Riparian area management: Greenline riparian-wetland monitoring. Bureau of Land Management /SC/ST-93/001+1737, Denver, CO: 45 pp.

  • Chen, J., S. Saunders, T. Crow, R. J. Naiman, K. Brosofske, G. Mroz, B. Brookshire, & J. F. Franklin, 1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape ecology. BioScience 49: 288–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chovanec, A. & R. Raab, 1997. Dragonflies (Insecta, Odonta) and the ecological status of newly created wetlands-examples for long term bioindication programmes. Limnologica 27: 381–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities, 1995. Wise use and conservation of wetlands. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM (95) 189 final, 29.05.95, Brussels: 54 pp.

  • Conquest, L. L. & S. C. Ralph, 1998. Statistical Design and Analysis Considerations for Monitoring and Assessment. In Naiman, R. J. & R. E. Bilby (eds), River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York: 455–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet & E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C: 103 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croonquist, M. J. & R. P. Brooks, 1991. Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impact in riparian wetland areas. Envir. Man. 15: 701–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, V. H., S. Brown, R. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. Huntley, R. J. Naiman, W. E. Riebsame, M. G. Turner & T. Valone, 2000. Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecol. Applic.

  • Federal Register, 1996. National action plan to develop the hydrogeomorphic approach for assessing wetland functions. Federal Register 61: 42593–42603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren & M. D. Hurley, 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Envir. Man. 10: 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, J., F. R. Steiner & D. M. Green, 1994. Riparian evaluation and site assessment in Arizona. Landscape & urban Planning 28: 179–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, K., S. Leonard, G. Staidl & D. Prichard, 1990. Riparian area management: riparian and wetland classifiction review. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, TR-1737–5. Denver, CO: 56 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P. L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy & D. K. Hinkley, 1995. Classification and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana. Missoula, MT: 646 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity: A long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Applic. 1: 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1999. Seeking suitable endpoints: biological monitoring for wetland assessment. Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle: 55 pp.

  • Karr, J. R. & D. R. Dudley, 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Envir. Man. 5: 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleynhans, C. J., 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity of the Luvuvuhu River (Limpopo System, South Africa). J. Aquat. Ecosystem Health 5: 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf, G. M., 1995. Geomorphological stream channel classifiction in aquatic habitat restoration: uses and limitations. Aquat. Cons.: mar. & fresh. Ecosystems 5: 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusler, J. & W. Niering, 1998. Wetland assessment: Have we lost our way? National Wetlands Newsletter 20: 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, J. S. & D. B. Mazzarese, 1994. Rapid assessment of wetlands: history and application to management. In Mitsch, W. J. (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 625–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz, N. C., L. Squires & J. P. Baker, 1991. Research plan for monitoring wetland ecosystems. EPA/600/3–91/010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvalis, OR: 168 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, S., G. Staidl, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, W. Hagenbuck & D. Pritchard, 1992. Riparian area management: procedures for ecological site inventory-with special reference to riparianwetland sites. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management TR-1737–7. Denver: 135 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanson, G. P., 1994. Riparian Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 296 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltby, E., D. V. Hogan, C. P. Immirzi, J. H. Tellam & M. J. Van Der Peijl, 1994. Building a new approach to the investigation and assessment of wetland ecosystem functioning. In Mitsch, W. J. (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 637–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina, A. L., 1996. Native aquatic plants and ecological condition of southwestern wetlands and riparian areas. In Desired Future Conditions for Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems: Bringing Interests and Concerns Together. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. RM-GTR-272. Albuquerque, NM: 359 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, L. H., 1989. Riparian area management: Inventory and monitoring riparian areas. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management TR-1737–7. Denver, CO: 79 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W. J., 1992. Combining ecosystem and landscape approaches to Great Lakes wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 18: 552–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosley, M. P., 1987. The classification and characterization of rivers. In Richards, K. (ed.), River Channels, Environment and Process. Basil Blackwell, Oxford: 295–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. J., E. Castella, B. Clément, J. M. Hills, P. Obrdlik, I. D. Pulford, E. Schneider & M. C. D. Speight, 1994. Biotic indicators of riverine wetland ecosystem functioning. In Mitsch, W. J. (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 659–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R. J. & H. Décamps, 1997. The ecology of interfaces-riparian zones. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 621–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R. J., D. G. Lonzarich, T. J. Beechie & S. C. Ralph, 1992. General principles of classification and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers. In Boon, P. J., P. Calow & G. E. Petts (eds), River Conservation and Management. JohnWiley & Sons, New York: 92–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R. J., J. J. Magnuson, D. A. McKnight & J. A. Stanford, 1995. The Freshwater Imperative: A Research Agenda. Island Press, Washington, D.C: 165 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naiman, R. J., K. L. Fetherston, S. J. McKay & J. Chen, 1998. Riparian Forests. In Naiman, R. J. & R. E. Bilby (eds), River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York: 289–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council, 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries, 10. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.: 307 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naura, M. & M. Robinson, 1998. Principles of using river habitat survey to predict the distribution of aquatic species: an example applied to the native white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius Pallipes. Aquat. Cons. 8: 515–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, S. M. & D. C. Andersen, 1994. An assessment of riparian environmental quality by using butterflies and disturbance susceptibility scores. The Southwestern Naturalist 39: 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestler, J. M. & K. S. Long, 1997. Development of hydrological indices to aid cumulative impact analysis of riverine wetlands. Regul. Rivers: Research & Management 13: 317–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, W. G., A. P. Youngblood & A. H. Winward, 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4–Ecol-89–01. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT: 191 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, R. C. Jr., 1992. The RCE: a riparian, channel, and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshwat. Biol. 27: 295–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platts, W. S., C. Armour, G. D. Booth, M. Bryant, J. L. Bufford, P. Culpin, S. Jensen, G. W. Lienkaemper, G. W. Minshall, S. B. Monsen, R. L. Nelson, J. R. Sedell & J. S. Tuhy, 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-221. Ogden, UT: 177 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff, N. L. & 7 co-authors, 1997. The natural flow regime. Bio-Science 47: 769–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, M. M., 1998. Biodiversity. In Naiman, R. J. & R. E. Bilby (eds), River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York: 430–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, M. M., R. J. Naiman & T. A. Hanley, 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands-a test of biodiversity theory. Ecology 79: 94–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, C. M., R. J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J. R. Karr, M. W. Oswood, J. R. Webster, R. L. Welcomme & M. J. Winterbourn, 1988. Patch dynamics in lotic systems: The stream as a mosaic. J. N. am. Benthol. Soc. 7: 503–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, P. J., P. Fox, M. Everard, N. T. H. Holmes & F. H. Dawson, 1997. River habitat survey: a new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In Boon, P. J. & D. L. Howell (eds), Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, Edinburgh, U.K.: 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell & D. P. Braun, 1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Cons. Biol. 10: 1163–1174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R. L. & A. W. Allen, 1992. Assessment of habitat of wildlife communities on the Snake River, Jackson, Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 190. Washington, D.C.: 21 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Conversation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1987. National agricultural land evaluation and site assessment handbook 310:1. Washington, D.C.

  • Stauffer, J. C. & R. M. Goldstein, 1997. Comparison of three qualitative habitat indices and their applicability to prairie streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 17: 348–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, B. L., 1984. Status of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wat. Res. Bull. 20: 223–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide: intermountain region. Forest Service. Ogden, UT.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993. Riparian area management: Process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR-1737–3. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO: 51 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Wetland Bioassessment Fact Sheets. EPA 843–F-98–001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, USEPA, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubrow, A. Phillips & E. Losos, 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48: 607–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J., J. Martin, P. J. Boon & N. T. H. Holmes, 1998. Convergence of field survey protocols for SERCON (system for evaluating rivers for conservation) and RHS (river habitat survey). Aquat. Cons. 8: 579–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. F. & W. J. Mitsch, 1996. Functional assessment of five wetlands constructed to mitigate wetland loss in Ohio, U.S.A. Wetlands 16: 436–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngblood, A. P., W. G. Padgett & A. H. Winward, 1985. Riparian community type classification of eastern Idaho-westernWyoming. R4–Ecol-85–01. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT: 78 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Box 357980, Seattle, WA, 98195, U.S.A.

    Stephanie A. Innis & Robert J. Naiman

  2. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA, 98195, U.S.A.

    Scott R. Elliott

Authors
  1. Stephanie A. Innis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Naiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott R. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Innis, S.A., Naiman, R.J. & Elliott, S.R. Indicators and assessment methods for measuring the ecological integrity of semi-aquatic terrestrial environments. Hydrobiologia 422, 111–131 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017033226325

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017033226325

Search

Navigation