A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

guidelines for selection and use of vertebrates as ecological indicators were analyzed.
The conclusion was, “that an absence of precise definitions and procedures, confounded
criteria used to select species, and discordance with ecological literature severely
weakens the effectiveness and credibility of using vertebrates as ecological indicators. In
many cases, the use of ecological indicator species is inappropriate…” They then
provide eight recommendations to make the use of indicators more rigorous.
1. clearly state assessment goals,
2. use indicators only when other assessment options are unavailable,
3. choose indicator species by explicitly defined criteria that are in accord with
assessment goals,
4. include all species that fulfill stated selection criteria,
5. know the biology of the indicator in detail and treat the indicator as a formal
estimator in conceptual and statistical models,
6. identify and define sources of subjectivity when selecting monitoring and
interpreting indicator species,
7. submit assessment design, methods of data collection and statistical analysis,
interpretations, and recommendations to peer review, and
8. direct research at developing an over-all strategy for monitoring wildlife that
accounts for natural variability in population attributes and incorporates concepts
from landscape ecology.”
Although written several years ago and several of the above criteria are probably more
intense than we would want to implement, some of the recommendations are still
applicable today and are good direction to address the problems the NFGT is
experiencing.
In an article titled “Adaptive Monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and
monitoring.” 6 Lindenmayer and Likens (2009) outlined the current problems with
monitoring programs:
1. Monitoring programs are driven by short-term funding or political directive rather
than carefully posed questions and objectives,
2. Monitoring programs have been poorly designed from the beginning, and
3. Monitoring often includes a large number of species (laundry list), but resource
and time constraints mean that this approach is done badly.
Lindenmayer and Likens contend that asking questions to drive monitoring efforts is the
most efficient and effective strategy to obtain meaningful ecological results.
Dale and Beyeler 7 (2001) listed three concerns that hamper the use of ecological
indicators are a resource management tool:
6 Lindenmayer, D.B. and G.E. Likens. 2009. Adaptive Monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research
and monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (9):482-486.
7 Dale, V. H. and S.C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators.
Published by Elsevier Science ltd.