The soil metric had the lowest DP, but it was among the least redundant of any metric. Across all metrics, only two pairs (vegetation pair and buffer pair) were strongly correlated. Of the 15 metrics, 12 had good or strong DP and were not redundant. We statistically tested metric ratings and factor scores for their discriminatory power (DP) in relation to a stressor index using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and for redundancy using Spearman rank correlation and scattergrams. We applied these metrics to 220 wetland sites across six states (Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington), using two assessment area (AA) approaches: 106 sites used 0.5 ha point-based AAs 114 sites used variable-sized polygon-based AAs. We used a conceptual model of ecological integrity for wetlands and field data to select and test 15 rapid assessment indicators (using specific metrics) across a spectrum of major ecological factors or MEFs (landscape, buffer, vegetation, hydrology, soil). Although these rapid assessment methods use a combination of metrics to rate overall ecological condition, they rarely include tests of either the merits of the component metrics being assessed or the method of aggregating the metrics into an overall rating. Many ecological monitoring and assessment programs include rapid assessment methods that employ indicators or metrics to track the degree of divergence of ecosystem condition from reference conditions. While we present the steps linearly for conceptual clarity, actual implementation of this approach may require addressing the steps in a Using ecological integrity to communicate with managers requires five steps, often implemented iteratively: (1) document the scale of the project and the current conceptual understanding and reference conditions of the ecosystem, (2) select appropriate metrics representing integrity, (3) define externally verified assessment points (metric values that signify an ecological change or need for management action) for the metrics, (4) collect data and calculate metric scores, and (5) summarize the status of the ecosystem using a variety of reporting methods.
Ecological integrity has been defined as a measure of the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in rela-tion to the system's natural or historical range of variation, as well as perturbations caused by natural or anthropogenic agents of change. Lamont.This chapter describes and illustrates how concepts of ecological integrity, thresholds, and reference conditions can be integrated into a research and monitoring framework for natural resource management. My God continue to bless each individual and a very special thank you and God bless to Mr. Highly recommended all the way from California. My Brother was very handsome and the service was beautiful. I even received checkup phone calls, words of encouragement, and prayer. After exchanging information all of the funeral arrangements were underway and tooken care of. Sadly I felt there were some places that play on the mourning family emotions. The prices, my family and I were very comfortable with a breath of fresh air. I could barely put one foot in front of the other let alone began the process of getting my Brother from Wisconsin to Louisiana. I am currently residing in California and our home burial is in Louisiana. To make a very painful story short, my only living sibling from my Mother was taken away from us last year in March in Wisconsin. I had no idea, nor which direction to go in and a blessing fell at my feet with Mr. My experience with Intergity Funeral Directors wholeheartedly was God Sent.
0 kommentar(er)
