Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70022495

Aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration: Advances in methods for assessment and evaluation

Abstract

Many methods and criteria are available to assess aquatic ecosystems, and this review focuses on a set that demonstrates advancements from community analyses to methods spanning large spatial and temporal scales. Basic methods have been extended by incorporating taxa sensitivity to different forms of stress, adding measures linked to system function, synthesizing multiple faunal groups, integrating biological and physical attributes, spanning large spatial scales, and enabling simulations through time. These tools can be customized to meet the needs of a particular assessment and ecosystem. Two case studies are presented to show how new methods were applied at the ecosystem scale for achieving practical management goals. One case used an assessment of biotic structure to demonstrate how enhanced river flows can improve habitat conditions and restore a diverse fish fauna reflective of a healthy riverine ecosystem. In the second case, multitaxonomic integrity indicators were successful in distinguishing lake ecosystems that were disturbed, healthy, and in the process of restoration. Most methods strive to address the concept of biological integrity and assessment effectiveness often can be impeded by the lack of more specific ecosystem management objectives. Scientific and policy explorations are needed to define new ways for designating a healthy system so as to allow specification of precise quality criteria that will promote further development of ecosystem analysis tools.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M.B. Bain, A.L. Harig, D.P. Loucks, R.R. Goforth, K.E. Mills. 2000. Aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration: Advances in methods for assessment and evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1462-9011(00)00029-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Prototyping structured decision making for water resource management in the San Francisco Bay-Delta

A structured decision making (SDM) approach can help evaluate tradeoffs between conservation and human-benefit objectives by fostering communication and knowledge transfer among stakeholders, decision makers, and the public. However, the process is iterative and completing the full process may take years. It can be difficult to initiate an SDM effort when problems seem insurmountable. Occasionally, SDM may not even be the best or correct approach for addressing the conservation problem at hand. We describe the implementation of an SDM process to help inform difficult decisions related to competing objectives. We convened a diverse stakeholder group from the largest estuary in the western United States; the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta). The stakeholder group consisted of representatives from local, state, and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and recreational fishers. The stakeholder group agreed on a problem statement and identified four priority objectives related to Chinook salmon, delta smelt, water availability and reliability, and agricultural water use. Furthermore, they proposed 14 candidate management actions to achieve their objectives. The group then used existing quantitative models and data to evaluate trade-offs in proposed management actions to identify areas of agreement of proposed candidate actions. The clear communication of the problem statement and objectives among the stakeholder group, along with evaluation of tradeoffs and uncertainty via decision-support models suggest that a full SDM approach may work in the Bay-Delta. We further communicate lessons learned during our implementation of SDM to help guide future SDM efforts in the region and elsewhere.

California

Lessons learned in knowledge co-production for climate-smart decision-making

Knowledge co-production, a process that involves both creators and users of information in knowledge generation, is growing in popularity in the conservation and ecology fields. While examples of successful co-production are becoming more common, many barriers and challenges remain in this work. Here, we reflect on our experiences in knowledge co-production from three recent case studies, using a prominent framework to understand and improve our efforts at each phase of the co-production process. Our reflections yield insights that may help other scientists seeking to support decision-making. We found that paying particular attention to the composition of the team and connecting with agency representatives early and often are key to success. Long-term commitment to the project and the people involved are also key. We conclude with suggestions for refining the framework to incorporate our primary lessons learned and include the valuation of a plurality of knowledge systems and empowerment as an ultimate impact of knowledge co-production.

Environmental Science and Policy

Institutional barriers to actionable science: Perspectives from decision support tool creators

Scholars have identified a ‘usability gap’ between science and its ability to inform real-world decisions as well as a range of factors that facilitate or impede attempts to span the usability gap with information products. However, most attention has focused on barriers related to information users; much less research focuses on the unique institutional and organizational barriers experienced by creators of decision support tools. To address this gap, we used semi-structured interviews to investigate the perspectives and experiences of practitioners holding scientific or technology roles, including their goals for their tools, their perceptions of success in meeting those goals, and the barriers and opportunities they encountered. We find that there is often a mismatch between what tool creators know is necessary to achieve success for their tools and what is actually possible given various constraints. Our results suggest that knowledge may be a less important barrier to conducting actionable science through creating decision support tools than the institutional context in which tool creators work.

Environmental Science and Policy