A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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.
1. Monitoring programs often depend on a small number of indicators and, as a consequence, fail to consider the full complexity of the ecological system, 2. Choice of ecological indicators is often confounded in management programs that have vague long-term goal and objectives, 3. <strong>Management</strong> and monitoring programs often lack scientific rigor because of their failure to use a defined protocol for identifying ecological indicators. “The Plan’s monitoring and evaluation is not rigorous scientific research, nor was it intended to be. The level of research is not necessary for evaluating Plan implementation.” 8 It would be worthwhile to involve the Research Unit nearby to assist us in developing some protocols, if not national protocols for maintaining and evaluating monitoring data for species and ecological communities we might choose are not readily available elsewhere. The Case For and Against Monitoring Programs Table 1. Pros and Cons of Monitoring Programs Pros 9 Cons 10 Monitoring programs provide a basis for Monitoring programs are prohibitively learning and understanding Monitoring program data can resolve complicated resources issues. Monitoring programs can provide new and novel approaches to management Monitoring programs can help us understand the loss of ecological resilience. Monitoring can provide insights into cause-and-effect relations between environmental stressors and anticipated ecosystem responses. expensive to implement Relationships between indicator species and habitat characteristics are often not known Changes in the population that are detected could be due to habitat changes beyond management control Monitoring of indicator species may be impractical because the large numbers of skilled staff required may not be available during the critical time periods. Selection of species is sometimes based on factors other than their biological or ecological representatives Court Rulings Including Recent Sierra Club Settlement Agreement 8 National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. 1999. The NFGT 1997-1999 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Lufkin, Texas. 9 Busch, D. and J. Trexler. 2002. Monitoring Ecosystems. Island Press. 384 pp. 10 General Accounting Office (GAO). 1991. Wildlife <strong>Management</strong>: Problems Being Experienced with Current Monitoring Approach. Washington, D.C.
Page 1 and 2: Introduction A White Paper Discussi
Page 3: The NFGT utilized the 1982 Planning
Page 7: After evaluating all of the availab

A White Paper Discussing Management Indicator Species (MIS)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?