South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these...
Transcript of South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these...
![Page 1: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
8-10-2016
South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016
Rua Mordecai, Science Coordinator
![Page 2: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Blueprint 2.1 indicators tested
• Freshwater aquatic – Permeable surface – Riparian buffers
• Waterscapes
– Network complexity
• Marine
– Marine mammals
![Page 3: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Indicator testing overview
• Indicators need to represent a wide range of organisms and ecosystem attributes.
• Testing the current spatial depictions of indicators against monitoring data for other components of the ecosystem helps ensure indicators are working as intended.
• Indicators typically fail testing for two reasons: 1. There is a conceptual problem. For example, nest productivity of
loggerhead sea turtles failed due to extensive species specific management in some areas. These turtles maintained high productivity in places where other beach species did poorly.
2. There is a modeling problem. Indicators may be conceptually sound but do not have good enough spatial models available and perform poorly in testing.
• Indicators that fail testing are either improved or replaced by a new
indicator.
![Page 4: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Permeable surface
• Riparian buffers
• Network complexity
4
Freshwater aquatic and waterscapes indicator testing
![Page 5: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Test data 1: Further permeable surface testing
• Water quality sampling from 2,951 waterbodies throughout the NC part of the South Atlantic LCC
• Data collected from 2006 – 2010 and provided by NC DENR Division of Water Quality as part of the 2012 integrated reporting of water quality assessments
![Page 6: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Permeable surface indicator testing methods
• Used “supporting” vs. “not supporting” aquatic uses for each waterbody – NC assigns a “best-intended use” for each waterbody,
including aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption, water supply, and shellfish harvesting
• Tested against value of indicator pixel on top of
monitoring point
• Compared using logistic regression in R
![Page 7: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Permeable surface vs. water quality
![Page 8: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Conclusions
• Permeable surface worked relatively well in predicting “supporting” vs. “not supporting” aquatic uses for each waterbody.
• There is still significant variation not accounted for by this indicator.
• Given the lack of a clear threshold at 90% permeable, the results suggest use of this indicator in a continuous form is better that the previous bins of <90%, 90-95%, and >95% permeable.
![Page 9: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Test data 2: EPA Rivers and Streams Assessment
• 2008/2009 sampling
• Fish and benthic insect indexes consistent across state lines
![Page 10: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Riparian buffer indicator testing methods
• Used benthic multimetric index “BENT_MMI_COND” from sampling points
• Tested against value of indicator pixel on top of monitoring point
• Compared using boxplot in R
• Focused testing on nonurban areas. Impairment in these areas are less likely to be captured with the permeable surface indicator.
![Page 11: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Riparian indicator vs. IBI samples
• % natural in active river area
• 111 nonurban sampling points – EPA 2008/2009
assessment
• Performed relatively well in testing
![Page 12: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Indicator improvement from Blueprint 2.0 to 2.1
Blueprint 2.0 version – Poor performance Blueprint 2.1 version – Much better
![Page 13: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Conclusions
• Performed relatively well in testing, especially when compared to the version from Blueprint 2.0.
• There is still significant variation not accounted for by this indicator.
![Page 14: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Network complexity indicator testing methods
• Used fish multimetric index “FISH_MMI_RF_COND” from sampling points
• Tested against value of indicator pixel on top of monitoring point
• Compared using boxplot in R
![Page 15: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Network complexity vs. Fish IBI samples
• # of connected stream classes
• 168 sampling points – EPA 2008/2009
assessment
• Performed relatively well in distinguishing between “Good” and “Fair” or “Poor”
![Page 16: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Conclusions
• This indicator performed relatively well in distinguishing between “Good” and “Fair” or “Poor” classes of the Fish IBI.
• There is still significant variation not accounted for by this indicator.
![Page 17: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Methods to test all three indicators combined
• Test data 1 (NC Water Quality) – Logistic regression models in R with permeable surface, riparian buffer, and network complexity
• Test data 2 (EPA Rivers and Streams) – Boxplots in R with pairwise comparisons of permeable surface, riparian buffer, and network complexity indicators and Benthic and Fish IBI
![Page 18: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Conclusions
• Test data 1 (NC Water Quality) – Only permeable surface alone was a significant predictor of water quality attainment. Most water quality attainment failures were due to harmful bacteria or chemical contaminants.
• Test data 2 (EPA Rivers and Streams) – Only riparian buffers was a significant predictor of Benthic IBI, and only network complexity was a significant predictor of Fish IBI.
• Each indicator appears to be predicting a different component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing as intended.
![Page 19: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• Marine mammals
19
Marine Indicator testing
![Page 20: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Test data 1: Sea turtle sightings per unit effort
• Sightings per unit effort for all sea turtle species from 1998 - 2005
• Data from US Navy as summarized in the South Atlantic Marine Bight Assessment
• Used only the 3 highest density classes for each season
• Map on right shows highest density classes for each season combined (darker is higher)
![Page 21: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Marine mammal testing methods
• Simple overlay in ArcGIS to look for areas of spatial overlap
![Page 22: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Marine mammal indicator vs Sea turtle data
Sea turtle data Top 30% marine mammal over sea turtle data
![Page 23: South Atlantic Indicator Testing: 2015 - 2016 · component of ecosystem integrity. None of these indicators should be removed as none appear to be redundant and all are performing](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022041506/5e24f5442f111c298e1a0561/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Conclusions
• Performed relatively well in all areas except for a region off the coast of Georgia and North Florida. This is an area with a known issue in the marine mammal indicator related to the Right Whale model. An improvement to that model is expected in 2016/2017.
• This indicator should be retested after the upcoming improvements to the marine mammal indicator.