1 / 26

Multimetric Indices Development for Assessing Ecosystem Health in Colorado Bioregions

This document details the preparation and evaluation of multimetric indices designed to assess the ecological health of reference and stressed sites across various bioregions in Colorado. Focusing on mountains, plains, and xeric ecoregions, the study establishes taxa-specific criteria and metrics to discriminate between healthy and stressed environments. It further includes a comprehensive analysis of metrics' effectiveness, scoring, and redundancy, leading to the construction of potential indices for effective ecological monitoring and management.

ranee
Télécharger la présentation

Multimetric Indices Development for Assessing Ecosystem Health in Colorado Bioregions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft Multimetric Indices for Colorado

  2. Data Preparation • Established reference and stressed criteria • Identified reference and stressed sites • Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric

  3. Ecoregions 20 Colorado Plateaus 21 Southern Rockies 22 Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 25 Western High Plains 26 Southwestern Tablelands

  4. Bioregions 1 Mountains 2 Plains 3 Xeric

  5. Data Preparation • Established reference and stressed criteria • Established reference and stressed sites • Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric • Established consistent taxonomic rules (OTU) • Assembled metrics • Removed site duplicates and replicates

  6. Metric Evaluation • Looked at metric range and variability by region • Considered metric ecological “sense” • Investigated metrics discrimination efficiency (DE) • Ability to discriminate a priori reference from stressed (percent stressed < 25th % reference) • Examined metric redundancy • First principles (ie E taxa and EPT taxa) • Pearson product-moment correlation

  7. Metric Scoring • Scored candidate metrics from 0-100 based on 5th and 95th percentiles • Decreaser scores = 100*(value/95th) • Increaser scores = 100*[(Max-value)/(95th-5th)]

  8. Index Construction • Constructed at least 10 potential indices using variable combinations of candidate metrics for each region • Minimized redundancy • Maximized categorical representation • Composition, richness, tolerance, habit, and functional feeding • Calculated index DE

  9. Mountains

  10. Mountains – Draft Indices • Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Total Taxa Tolerance • HBI • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae • Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Diptera Taxa • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae

  11. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Diptera Taxa • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae DE = 85% CV = 8%

  12. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Total Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae DE = 90% CV = 8%

  13. Mountains • Richest dataset • Reference and stressed sites variable • Discrimination Efficiencies were good • 3/5 categories represented

  14. Plains

  15. Plains – Draft Indices • Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Clinger Taxa • Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete • Percent EPT Tolerance • HBI Trophic • Percent Predators • Index 3 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Percent Sprawlers

  16. Plains – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Clinger Taxa DE = 100% CV = 20%

  17. Plains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete • Percent EPT Tolerance • HBI Trophic • Percent Predators DE = 100% CV = 19%

  18. Plains – Draft Indices Index 3 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Percent Sprawlers DE = 100% CV = 17%

  19. Plains • Fewer reference and stressed sites • Discrimination Efficiencies 100% • 3/5 to 4/5 categories represented

  20. Xeric

  21. Xeric – Draft Indices • Index 1 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers • Index 2 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers • Index 3 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • HBI • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Percent Sprawler Trophic • Percent Filterers

  22. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers DE = 72% CV = 13%

  23. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers DE = 94% CV = 8%

  24. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 3 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • HBI • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Percent Sprawler Trophic • Percent Filterers DE= 94% CV = 7%

  25. Xeric • Fewer reference sites • Discrimination Efficiencies were very good • 4/5 to 5/5 categories represented

  26. Review Mountains MMI Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Diptera Taxa • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae Plains MMI Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Percent Sprawlers Xeric MMI Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Tolerance • HBI • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Percent Sprawler Trophic • Percent Filterers

More Related