Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wetland Indices of Biological Integrity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Wetland Techniques

Abstract

Quantifying the biological response to wetland stressors and anthropogenic influences, as well as restoration, enhancement, compensatory mitigation, and other activities is critical to evaluating the impact of an activity or tracking trends over time. Without being able to do so, judging the success or failure in an ecological context of best-management practices during development activities, or that of a wetland mitigation bank would be indefensible in terms of scientific integrity and rigor. However, developing a systematic approach with repeatable and meaningful results takes time, forethought, and a lot of baseline effort. We examine the history of indices of biological integrity (IBIs), how they evolved and are applied, and what utility they can provide into the future. Furthermore, we outline one approach taken in West Virginia, and its relevancy nested within wetland policy. In doing so, we hope readers are able to not only understand the important study design questions and challenges associated with creating IBIs but also the valuation and importance of such a tracking tool to wetland resource managers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson JT, Smith LM (2000) Invertebrate response to moist-soil management of playa wetlands. Ecol Appl 10:550–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RC, Norris RH, Reynoldson TB (2001) Taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessments. J N Am Bentholl Soc 20:280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe CK, Anderson JT, Fortney RH, Kordek WS (2005) Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in mitigated and natural wetlands. Hydrobiology 541:175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Stribling JB, Karr JR (1995) Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. In: Davis WS, Simon TP (eds) Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, pp 63–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Griffith GE, Frydenborg R, McCarron E, White JS, Bastian ML (1996) A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Bentholl Soc 13:185–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Report EPA 841-B-99-002

    Google Scholar 

  • Batzer D (2004) Movements of upland invertebrates into drying seasonal woodland ponds in northern Minnesota, USA. Wetlands 24:904–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (1996) Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annu Rev Entomol 41:75–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP, Shurtleff AS, Rader RB (2001) Sampling invertebrates in wetlands. In: Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennet RJ (1999) Examination of macroinvertebrate communities and development of an invertebrate community index (ICI) for central Pennsylvania wetlands. Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaustein AR, Wake DB, Sousa WP (1994) Amphibian declines: judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conserv Biol 8:60–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blocksom KA (2003) A performance comparison of metric scoring for a multimetric index for Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environ Manage 31:670–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford DF, Franson SE, Neale AC, Heggem DT, Miller GR, Canterbury GE (1998) Bird species assemblages as indicators of biological integrity in Great Basin rangeland. Environ Monit Assess 49:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady VJ, Cardinale BJ, Gathman JP, Burton TM (2002) Does the facilitation of fauna recruitment benefit ecosystem restoration? An experimental study of invertebrate assemblages in wetland mesocosms. Restor Ecol 10:617–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. Technical report WRP-DE-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP (1997) Improving habitat suitability models. Wildl Soc Bull 25:163–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, O’Connell TJ, Wardrop DH, Jackson LE (1998) Towards a regional index of biological integrity: the example of forested riparian ecosystems. Environ Monit Assess 51:131–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA (2006) Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a watershed bases with examples from Spring Creek watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manage 38:673–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canterbury GE, Martin TE, Petit DR, Petit LJ, Bradford DF (2000) Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conserv Biol 14:544–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipps SR, Hubbard DE, Werlin KB, Haugerud NJ, Powell KA, Thompson J, Johnson T (2006) Association between wetland disturbance and biological attributes in floodplain wetlands. Wetlands 26:456–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole CA, Brooks RP, Wardrop DH (1997) Wetland hydrology as a function of hydrogeomorphic (HGM) subclass. Wetlands 17:456–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, JN, Stein ED, Sutula M, Clark R, Fetscher AE, Grenier L, Grosso C, Wiskind A (2008) California rapid assessment method (CRAM) for wetlands. Version 5.0.2, 151 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin AM (2003) Macroinvertebrate communities as biological indicators of condition in Pennsylvania depressional wetlands. Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC, LaRoe ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Report FWS/OBS-79/31

    Google Scholar 

  • Croonquist MJ, Brooks RP (1991) Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas. Environ Manage 15:701–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins KW, Merritt RW (2001) Application of invertebrate functional groups to wetland ecosystem function and biomonitoring. In: Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New York, pp 85–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch SM, Whited DC, Tester JR (1999) Development of community metrics to evaluate recovery of Minnesota wetlands. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recover 6:217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernes MC, Helgen JC (2002) Indexes of Biological Integrity (IBI) for large depressional wetlands in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerritsen J, Burton J, Barbour MT (2000) A stream condition index for West Virginia wadeable streams. Tetra Tech, Inc., Owing Mills

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill BH, Herlihy AT, Kaufman PR, DeCelles SJ, Vander Borgh MA (2003) Assessment of streams of the eastern United States using a periphyton index of biotic integrity. Ecol Indic 2:325–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenhoff WL (1988) Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J N Am Bentholl Soc 7:65–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, Herlihy AT, Kincaid TM, Reynolds L, Larsen DP (1998) A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1618–1631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs AD (2010) Delaware rapid assessment procedure version 6.0. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, 36 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol Appl 1:66–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR, Chu EW (2000) Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiology 422(423):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp M (2004) Initial development of wetland invertebrate community index for Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment, Groveport

    Google Scholar 

  • Koning CO (2005) Vegetation patterns resulting from spatial and temporal variability in hydrology, soils, and trampling in an isolated basin marsh, New Hampshire, USA. Wetlands 25:239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ (2001) Ohio rapid assessment method for wetlands v. 5.0, user’s manual and scoring forms. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus. Ohio technical report WET/2001-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack JJ (2004) Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 9: Field manual for the vegetation index of biotic integrity for Wetlands v. 1.3. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus. Ohio EPA technical report WET/2004-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee TK, Kentula ME (2005) Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions. Wetl Ecol Manage 13:163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahaney WM, Wardrop DH, Brooks RP (2004) Impacts of sedimentation and nitrogen enrichment on wetland plant community development. Plant Ecol 175:227–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted JR, Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Poretti V, Primrose N, Silvia A, Penrose D, Renfrow R (2000) Assessment framework for mid-Atlantic coastal plain streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Bentholl Soc 19:128–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micacchion M (2004) Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 7: Amphibian index of biotic integrity (AmphIBI) for Ohio wetlands. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus. Ohio EPA technical report WET/2004-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SJ, Wardrop DH (2006) Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecol Indic 6:313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller SJ, Wardrop DH, Mahaney WM, Brooks RP (2006) A plant-based index of biological integrity (IBI) for headwater wetlands in central Pennsylvania. Ecol Indic 6:290–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miltner RJ, White D, Yoder C (2004) The biotic integrity of streams in urban and suburbanizing landscapes. Landuse Urban Plan 69:87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyle PB, Randall PJ (1998) Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California. Conserv Biol 12:1318–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell TJ, Jackson LE, Brooks RP (1998) A bird community index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic highlands. Environ Monit Assess 51:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor R, Walls TE, Hughes RM (2000) Using multiple taxonomic groups to index the ecological condition of lakes. Environ Monit Assess 61:207–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann JHK, Scott DE, Semlitsch RD, Caldwell JP, Vitt LJ, Gibbons JW (1991) Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253:892–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rentch JS, Anderson JT (2006) A floristic quality index for West Virginia wetland and riparian plant communities. West Virginia Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown, 65 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff GJ, Kernohan BJ (1999) Evaluating reliability of habitat suitability index models. Wildl Soc Bull 27:973–985

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon TP, Jankowski R, Morris C (2000) Modification of an index of biotic integrity for assessing vernal ponds and small palustrine wetlands using fish, crayfish, and amphibian assemblages along southern Lake Michigan. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manage 3:407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiers A (1999) Review of international/continental wetland resources. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Jabiru

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft OW, Colwell MA, Isola CR, Safran RJ (2002) Waterbird responses to experimental drawdown: implications for the multispecies management of wetland mosaics. J Appl Ecol 39:987–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teels BM, Mazanti LE, Rewa CA (2004) Using an IBI to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures to replace loss of a wetland-stream ecosystem. Wetlands 24(2):375–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (1980) Habitat evaluation procedures handbook. Division of Ecological Services, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. http://www.fws.gov/policy/ESMindex.html. Accessed 28 Feb 2012

  • USEPA (2002) Methods for evaluating wetland condition: developing metrics and indexes of biological integrity. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Report EPA-822-R-02-016

    Google Scholar 

  • Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummings KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE (1980) The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veraat JA, de Groot RS, Perello G, Riddiford NJ, Roijackers R (2004) Selection of (bio) indicators to assess effects of freshwater use in wetlands: a case study of s’Albufera de Mallorca, Spain. Reg Environ Chang 4:107–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Veselka WE (2008) Developing volunteer-driven indices of biological integrity for wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Master’s thesis, West Virginia University

    Google Scholar 

  • Veselka WE, Anderson JT, Kordek WS (2010a) Using dual classifications in the development of avian wetland indices of biological integrity for wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Environ Monit Assess 164:533–548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Veselka WE, Rentch JS, Grafton WN, Kordek WS, Anderson JT (2010b) Using two classification schemes to develop vegetation indices of biological integrity for wetlands in West Virginia, USA. Environ Monit Assess 170:555–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wake DB (1991) Declining amphibian populations. Science 253:860

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weller WM (1988) Issues and approaches in assessing cumulative impacts on waterbird habitats in wetlands. Environ Manage 12:695–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West Virginia Interagency Review Team (2011) West Virginia stream wetland valuation metric. http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/permits/mitigation/. Accessed 21 Feb 2012

  • Wilson LA (1995) Land manager’s guide to amphibians and reptiles of the south. The Nature Conservancy, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods AJ, Omernik JM, Brown DD (1999) Level III and IV ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyman RL (1990) What’s happening to the amphibians? Conserv Biol 4:350–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Forestry and Natural Resources & Environmental Research Center, West Virginia University, 6125, Morgantown, WV, 26506-6125, USA

    Walter E. Veselka IV & James T. Anderson

Authors
  1. Walter E. Veselka IV
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James T. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James T. Anderson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Forestry & Natural Resources & Environmental Research Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA

    James T. Anderson

  2. Department of Natural Resource Ecology a, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

    Craig A. Davis

Student Exercises

Student Exercises

1.1.1 Classroom Exercises

The following five activities are designed as short in-class discussions.

  1. 1.

    If we are given bird data from Boy Scout groups, Master Naturalists, and other well-meaning volunteer groups collecting data, what are some reasons why this data may not be suitable for inclusion into an IBI?

  2. 2.

    If developers acquire land in the fall, survey for wetlands over the winter, and plan to break ground in spring; what are some IBI shortcomings with regards to permitting and what is being used instead and why?

  3. 3.

    What are some problems using landscape variables derived from GIS layers to estimate wildlife population numbers and abundance?

  4. 4.

    Why is it important to limit the number of metrics included in an IBI and how would you do it?

  5. 5.

    How do indices of biological integrity fit within the EPA three-tiered approach to water resource monitoring? What are some other types of Level 3 assessment methods and how do they figure into the three-tiered approach?

1.1.2 Laboratory Exercises

The following questions are meant to be in-depth comprehensive exercises to demonstrate a working knowledge about IBI functions and uses.

  1. 1.

    Sample and identify a suite of macroinvertebrates from a known high quality and marginal quality wetland. What metrics would you consider using to determine wetland condition? How would you test these metrics for inclusion within an IBI?

  2. 2.

    Select five peer-reviewed publications from a taxa group in wetlands, but not featured in this chapter. From these publications, develop a series of potential metrics that many be included in an IBI. Why did you select the characteristics? How would you test to determine metric efficacy?

  3. 3.

    If given a dataset of volunteer collected data, what steps would you take to ensure data integrity, and then develop an IBI based on the existing data and not newly collected data? How would you develop a disturbance index to compare the metrics about? What are some advantages and disadvantages associated with this methodology of IBI development as compared to ground-up development?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Veselka, W.E., Anderson, J.T. (2013). Wetland Indices of Biological Integrity. In: Anderson, J., Davis, C. (eds) Wetland Techniques. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6907-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation