Opportunities and Challenges for Accurately Documenting the Distribution of Aquatic Biota

1

• Initiated in 1997 as first statewide pilot
  project for aquatic component of GAP
• Objective identify riverine ecosystems and
  associated biotic assemblages
  not adequately represented in existing
  conservation lands

2
General Approach
3
Purpose of Presentation

• Provide an overview of some of the major data
  products generated by MO Aquatic GAP Project
• Provide an overview of the utility of these data
  products for monitoring

4
Step 1 Classify and Map Distinct Riverine
Ecosystems
Level 5
Ecological Drainage Units
Level 6
Aquatic Ecological System Types
Level 7
Valley Segment Types
Zone Nearctic zoogeographic zone Subzone
Arctic/Atlantic Drainages Region
Mississippi Drainage Subregion Ozark
Plateau Ecological Drainage Unit Ozark
Plateau/Meramec Drainage Aquatic Ecological
System Upper Meramec/Dry Fork, Oak/Woodland
Plain, sandstone dominated, low gradient and
spring density stream complex Valley Segment
Type Warm, perennial, creek with a
relatively high gradient, flowing through
sandstone, and connecting to another creek
5
Purpose of Classifying Riverine EcosystemsFor
Aquatic GAP

• Provide ecological/evolutionary context
• Want to identify and assess representation of
  distinctive ecosystem units, not simply
  hotspots of diversity
• Provide an ecologically meaningful geographic
  framework for assessing conservation gaps
• Planning Regions and Assessment Units
• Provide surrogate abiotic conservation targets
• Complement biotic targets
• Provide a geographic template and predictor
  variables for developing predictive distribution
  models and maps

6
Definition of an Ecosystem

• A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and
  micro-organism communities and their non-living
  environment interacting as a functional
  unit Convention on Biological Diversity 1992
• An interacting system of a biological community
  and the associated abiotic environment
• EPA 1992

7
Ecoregions Do Not Delineate Interacting Aquatic
Systems
8
What Makes an Ecosystem Distinctive?

• Structural Features
• Longitudinal, lateral and cross-sectional
  morphology
• Depths, velocities, substrate, turbidity, cover
• Presence/abundance of habitat units, spatial
  arrangement of habitat units
• Functional Processes
• Hydrologic regimes, thermal regimes, nutrient
  cycling, energy sources/budgets, trophic
  dynamics
• Biological Composition
• Families, species, populations, or phylogenies

9
Ecoregions Generally Account for Structural and
Functional Variation in Freshwater Ecosystems

• DO NOT
• Account for species-level compositional
  variation

10
Step 1 Hierarchical Classification of Riverine
Ecosystems
11
Levels 1-3 of the Hierarchy(Zone, Subzone, and
Region)

• Largely account compositional differences in
  aquatic assemblages resulting from distinct
  evolutionary histories
• Adopted first 3 levels of Maxwell et al. (1995)

12
Level 4 Aquatic Subregions

• Largely correspond to ecoregions, which
• account for differences in aquatic
  assemblages resulting from geographic
  variation in ecosystem structure/function
  (e.g., flow, habitat)

13
Accounting for Compositional Differences
Throughout Subregions
14
Delineating EDUs Multivariate Analysis of Fish
Community Data
Ecological Drainage Units
NMS Ordination Plot of 8-digit Hydrologic Units
in the Plains Subregion
15
Level 5 Ecological Drainage Units (EDU)

• Largely account for compositional differences
  in aquatic assemblages resulting from
  distinct evolutionary histories

16
Accounting for Structural and FunctionalVariation
throughout Aquatic Subregions
17
Finer-Resolution Physiographic Variation Also
Influences Assemblages
Common Ozark Species Not Found in theBourbuese
or Dry Fork Fish Ozark minnow Wedgespot
shiner Bleeding shiner Crayfish Freckled
crayfish Saddleback crayfish Mussels Spectaclecas
e Slippershell Purple pimpleback Elephants
ear Western fanshell
Bourbuese River Watershed
Dry Fork River Watershed
Geology of the Meramec Watershed
18
Aquatic Ecological Systems and Types For the
Ozark/Meramec EDU

• Defined by multivariate cluster analysis of
  geology, soil, landform, and groundwater
  variables

19
Level 6 Aquatic Ecological System Types

• Like Aquatic Subregions, AES-Types
  account for differences in aquatic
  assemblages resulting from geographic
  variation in ecosystem structure/function
  (e.g., flow, habitat)

Note No 2 EDUs have the same combination
or spatial arrangement of
AES-types
Like colors represent ecosystem units having
similar structure and function (AES-Types)
20
Level 7 Valley Segment Types

• Valley segments stratify a continuous stream
  network into distinct hydrogeomorphic patches
• Also account for differences in aquatic
  assemblages resulting from geographic variation
  in structure and function

Unique Valley Segment Types
Individual Variables
21
Deciphering VST Codes
Valley Segment Type
Codes and Descriptions
212230021 Valley Segment Type Code 2 Warm 1
Headwaters 2 Intermittent flow 2 Flowing
through dolomite/limestone 3 Relatively high
gradient 0 Valley wall interaction (N/A) 0
Flows into another headwater 2 Flowing within
own valley 1 Primary channel
22
Understanding Ecological Context
Level 4
Subregions
Level 5
Ecological Drainage Units
Level 6
Aquatic Ecological System Types
Level 7
Valley Segment Types
Zone Nearctic zoogeographic zone Subzone
Arctic/Atlantic Drainages Region
Mississippi Drainage Subregion Ozark
Plateau Ecological Drainage Unit Ozark
Plateau/Meramec Drainage Aquatic Ecological
System Upper Meramec/Dry Fork, Oak/Woodland
Plain, sandstone dominated, low gradient and
spring density stream complex Valley Segment
Type Warm, perennial, creek with a
relatively high gradient, flowing through
sandstone, and connecting to another creek
23
Potential Uses Linking Biomonitoring with
Biodiversity Conservation

• Linking biomonitoring and biodiversity
  conservation efforts is critical to conserving
  our nations natural resources and without
  integrating such efforts we will likely not
  achieve the goals of either
• Hughes and Noss 1992 Moyle 1994 Davis
  and Simon 1995 Karr 1995

24
Different Purpose/Need for Classification?

• Biodiversity Conservation
• Delineate and map ecological units that account
  for genetic, population, species, community,
  landscape and ecosystem diversity
• Must consider all natural selection forces
• Biomonitoring
• Delineate and map ecological units that account
  for natural variation in the metrics used to
  assess impairment

Regional Reference Criteria
25
Potential Uses Efficient Stratification Tool
Dominant VST by AES-Type
Wadeable Perennial
Full Network
6,637 miles
1250 miles
Significantly Reduce the Sample Population
26
Even When Arbitrary Classes are Imposed Upon a
Continuum, the Classes are Useful
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Species Relative Abundance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Environmental Gradient (e.g., Temperature, Slope,
Drainage Area)
27

• Even when classifications make arbitrary breaks
  along a continuum, they are extremely valuable
  for biological monitoring, because
• They allow you to more precisely define/describe
  expected conditions
• This allows you to more accurately identify
  deviations from the expected and ultimately what
  factors are likely responsible for these
  deviations.
• Basically, the noise from the continuum of
  natural variation impairs your ability to
  identify human-induced variation in community
  composition
• By using a completely probabilistic design you
  are ignoring your knowledge of this variation,
  and the results of your monitoring will allow you
  to make a general diagnosis about your area of
  interest that is fraught with a mixing of natural
  and human-induced variation

28
Accounting for Variation related To Stream Size
Stream Size
29
Accounting for Variation related To Stream
Gradient
Relative Stream Gradient
30
Accounting for Variation related To
Presence/Abundance of Distinct Habitats
Bluff Pool Habitat
Density of Valley Wall Interaction
31
Potential Uses More Informative Reporting of
Results
Aquatic Subregions
Ecological Drainage Units
MDNR Reference sites
32
Potential Uses More precise criteria and
enhancing ability to identify specific cause of
impairment
AES-Types account for agricultural and resource
extractive land uses
33
Step 2 Predicting the Biological Potential
of each Stream Segment
34
Spatially-linked 1,000s of Collection Records to
Valley Segment Coverage
Stream Segments with Fish Collection Records
35
Mapped Geographic Ranges
36
Developed Predicted Distribution Models
37
Constructed Models Separately for Each Species
Black redhorse
Round pigtoe
Golden crayfish

• 571 total models constructed for 315 different
  species

38
Potential Uses Benchmark for community
composition
Plains 10 Species
Ozarks 27 Species
39
Potential Uses Identifying Additional
Populations of RTE Species
Plains Topminnow(Fundulus sciadicus)
Predicted DistributionNeosho EDU

• Only 3 populations in Neosho drainage
• Predicted to occur in 15 other streams
• Biologists made collections from 11
• Found 4 additional populations

40
Potential Uses Identifying Additional
Populations of RTE Species
41
Step 3 Generating Ownership/Stewardship
Statistics
7 of Missouris stream miles are in public lands
42
Assessing Percent of Watershed in Public Lands
gt 10
gt 50
gt 75
43
Potential Uses of Ownership Data

• Easily assess who owns the stream segment or
  watershed under consideration
• Help assess management options (e.g., private
  land incentive programs)
• Help establish appropriate management activities
• Help identify which specific people are in charge
  of implementing management activities or could
  offer assistance

44
Step 4 Accounting for Human Stressors
45
Developed a Human Stressor Index

• Urban
• Agriculture
• Density of Road/Stream crossings
• Population change
• Degree of fragmentation/hydrologic alteration
• Density of small impoundments
• Density of coal mines
• Density of lead mines
• Density of industrial discharges
• Density of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
• Number of Exotic Species

46
Human Stressor Index
First number reflects Highest magnitude of
individual stressor Last two numbers
reflectDegree of cumulative impacts
47
Potential Uses of Human Stressor Index and
Associated Input Data

• Help identify watersheds in need of restoration
  vs. those in need of more proactive protective
  measures
• Tool for identifying the specific stressors and
  thus, the management challenges within each
  watershed
• Tool for developing research projects attempting
  to quantify the potential effects of particular
  human stressors