|
Research: Nearshore Habitats and Coastal Stressors
Summary
-
Both the amount of development and its proximity to the estuary or wetland contributes to degradation of aquatic resources.
-
In general, > 20% development (at local and/or watershed levels) was related to shifts in biological communities (indicators), revealing possible ecological thresholds
-
Forest buffers were also noted to reduce sediment and nutrient loads along stream corridors or around wetlands
-
In many instances, local development had stronger links with the aquatic resource than watershed development
Additional Products from ASC
- Developing and Communicating a Taxonomy of Ecological Indicators: A Case Study from the Mid-Atlantic EcoHealth 4, 179–186, 2007. Denice Heller Wardrop, Carl Hershner, Kirk Havens, Kent Thornton, & Donna Marie Bilkovic
- The Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC) developed a taxonomy of ecological indicators to facilitate the application and evaluation of indicator selection and use, as well as the integration of appropriate indicators into environmental decision-making. The framework was based upon three primary elements: 1) The specific questions to be answered (the type of
indicator), 2) The spatial and/or temporal scale of the issue being addressed (the spatial/temporal scale over which the indicator is valid), and 3) The context of the question, using categories of surrounding land use as surrogates for social choices. A Fish Community Index (FCI) developed for the ASC will provide an example of utilizing the framework to select an indicator, as well as using the framework to judge the utility of the indicator.
- Assessment of Chesapeake Bay Program Selection and Use of Indicators EcoHealth 4, 187–193, 2007. Carl Hershner, Kirk Havens, Donna Marie Bilkovic, and Denice Wardrop
- The utility of a taxonomy of ecological indicators developed by The Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC) was evaluated through application within the Chesapeake Bay Program. We considered a set of 82 metrics generated by this Program, using qualitative assessment of descriptive materials. We found that 30 of these metrics conveyed sufficient information about the larger system to be considered true indicators. These 30 were classified according to the proposed taxonomy into one or more of five types: condition, evaluation, diagnostic, communication, or futures. We also evaluated the scales at which these indicators function temporally and spatially. We conclude that only a limited number of indicators are designed to be diagnostic and/or designed to forecast future conditions. The scale analyses suggest the indicator set is not
focused on local scales and/or the watershed component of the Bay system. The taxonomy succeeds in framing an assessment of existing indicator sets that can productively guide future development efforts. |
