A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems

Suter, Glenn; Norton, Susan B.; Cormier, Susan M.

doi:10.1002/etc.5620210602

Cited by 101 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Predictive performance • 115 proceed to do so?" We paraphrase his definitions of causal criteria (Box 1, Element 1), which remain consistently in such general use (e.g., Dorward-King et al 2001, Downes et al 2002, Suter et al 2002) that we accepted them at the outset of this study. strength (1) refers to the magnitude of the effect of an exposure relative to nonexposure, and consistency (2) to its repeated observation in varied times and circumstances by multiple observers.…”

Section: Causal Criteriamentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Further applications have included inferring causes of aquatic ecosystem impairment (Downes et al 2002, Suter et al 2002. Levels of evidence, as applied by Downes and others (2002) to human impacts on waterways, emphasizes a meta-analysis of the literature, applying principles of experimental design and statistics.…”

Section: Elements Of a Levels-of-evidence Approachmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This case uses causal criteria (Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health 1964, Hill 1965, Fox 1991, Suter et al 2002, which are standard to levelsof-evidence and weight-of-evidence approaches (Dorward-King et al 2001, Downes et al 2002, as a guide: from the initial experimental design for field-data collection, for modeling and meta-analyses, and finally for the synthesis and evaluation of cumulative effects. Through this effort, we have verified that a levels-of-evidence approach is a valuable tool to assess the cumulative effects of ecological restoration actions, although this tool does need to be modified based on understudied aspects of an ecosystem .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Levels-of-Evidence Approach for Assessing Cumulative Ecosystem Response to Estuary and River Restoration Programs

Diefenderfer¹,

Thom²,

Johnson³

et al. 2011

Ecological Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale ecological restoration programs are beginning to supplement isolated projects implemented on rivers and tidal waterways. Nevertheless, the effects of estuary and river restoration often continue to be evaluated at local project scales or by integration in an additive manner. Today, we have sufficient scientific understanding to apply knowledge gained from measuring cumulative impacts of anthropogenic stressors on ecosystems to assessment of ecological restoration. Integration of this knowledge has potential to increase the efficacy of restoration projects that are conducted at several locations but comanaged within the confines of a larger integrative program. We introduce a framework based on a levels-of-evidence approach that facilitates assessment of the cumulative landscape effects of individual restoration actions taken at many different locations. It incorporates data collection at restoration and reference sites, hydrodynamic modeling, geographic information systems, and meta-analyses in a five-stage process: design, data development, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, and application. This framework evolved from the need to evaluate the efficacy of restoration projects that are being implemented in numerous wetlands on the 235 km tidal portion of the Columbia River, USA, which are intended to increase rearing habitat for out-migrating juvenile salmonid fishes.

show abstract

Section: Causal Criteriamentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Elements Of a Levels-of-evidence Approachmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Levels-of-Evidence Approach for Assessing Cumulative Ecosystem Response to Estuary and River Restoration Programs

Diefenderfer¹,

Thom²,

Johnson³

et al. 2011

Ecological Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From a management perspective, among the greatest limitations of many indicators of coastal condition is the lack of a link with the cause for change (Suter et al 2002). In the development of indicators, distinguishing between measurements of disturbance or stress and measurements of ecosystem response is imperative.…”

Section: Linking Stress With Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Rationale for a New Generation of Indicators for Coastal Waters

Niemi

Wardrop

Brooks

et al. 2004

Environ Health Perspect

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than half the world’s human population lives within 100 km of the coast, and that number is expected to increase by 25% over the next two decades. Consequently, coastal ecosystems are at serious risk. Larger coastal populations and increasing development have led to increased loading of toxic substances, nutrients and pathogens with subsequent algal blooms, hypoxia, beach closures, and damage to coastal fisheries. Recent climate change has led to the rise in sea level with loss of coastal wetlands and saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers. Coastal resources have traditionally been monitored on a stressor-by-stressor basis such as for nutrient loading or dissolved oxygen. To fully measure the complexities of coastal systems, we must develop a new set of ecologic indicators that span the realm of biological organization from genetic markers to entire ecosystems and are broadly applicable across geographic regions while integrating stressor types. We briefly review recent developments in ecologic indicators and emphasize the need for improvements in understanding of stress–response relationships, contributions of multiple stressors, assessments over different spatial and temporal scales, and reference conditions. We provide two examples of ecologic indicators that can improve our understanding of these inherent problems: a) the use of photopigments as indicators of the interactive effects of nutrients and hydrology, and b) biological community approaches that use multiple taxa to detect effects on ecosystem structure and function. These indicators are essential to measure the condition of coastal resources, to diagnose stressors, to communicate change to the public, and ultimately to protect human health and the quality of the coastal environment.

show abstract

“…This process undermines our attempts to manage for sustainability into the future as managers rely on incomplete perspectives as to what a “natural” assemblage is for a given area and what factors shape it. This is especially acute in freshwater systems where historical data are relatively sparse compared with marine fisheries where shifting baselines were first documented, and where the dendritic nature of streams and rivers serve to aggregate stressors over large spatial and temporal scales, resulting in widespread effects [6]–[8] and difficulty in attributing causal mechanisms [9], [10]. Modeling and historical reconstruction of community compositions prior to human alteration could help managers correctly set and maintain baselines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Historical Fish Community Composition Using Surveys, Historical Collection Data, and Species Distribution Models

Labay¹,

Cohen²,

Sissel

et al. 2011

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate establishment of baseline conditions is critical to successful management and habitat restoration. We demonstrate the ability to robustly estimate historical fish community composition and assess the current status of the urbanized Barton Creek watershed in central Texas, U.S.A. Fish species were surveyed in 2008 and the resulting data compared to three sources of fish occurrence information: (i) historical records from a museum specimen database and literature searches; (ii) a nearly identical survey conducted 15 years earlier; and (iii) a modeled historical community constructed with species distribution models (SDMs). This holistic approach, and especially the application of SDMs, allowed us to discover that the fish community in Barton Creek was more diverse than the historical data and survey methods alone indicated. Sixteen native species with high modeled probability of occurrence within the watershed were not found in the 2008 survey, seven of these were not found in either survey or in any of the historical collection records. Our approach allowed us to more rigorously establish the true baseline for the pre-development fish fauna and then to more accurately assess trends and develop hypotheses regarding factors driving current fish community composition to better inform management decisions and future restoration efforts. Smaller, urbanized freshwater systems, like Barton Creek, typically have a relatively poor historical biodiversity inventory coupled with long histories of alteration, and thus there is a propensity for land managers and researchers to apply inaccurate baseline standards. Our methods provide a way around that limitation by using SDMs derived from larger and richer biodiversity databases of a broader geographic scope. Broadly applied, we propose that this technique has potential to overcome limitations of popular bioassessment metrics (e.g., IBI) to become a versatile and robust management tool for determining status of freshwater biotic communities.

show abstract

A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems

Cited by 101 publications

References 20 publications

A Levels-of-Evidence Approach for Assessing Cumulative Ecosystem Response to Estuary and River Restoration Programs

A Levels-of-Evidence Approach for Assessing Cumulative Ecosystem Response to Estuary and River Restoration Programs

Rationale for a New Generation of Indicators for Coastal Waters

Assessing Historical Fish Community Composition Using Surveys, Historical Collection Data, and Species Distribution Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About