Potential of multivariate quantitative methods for delineation and visualization of ecoregions

Multivariate clustering based on fine spatial resolution maps of elevation, temperature, precipitation, soil characteristics, and solar inputs has been used at several specified levels of division to produce a spectrum of quantitative ecoregion maps for the conterminous United States. The coarse ecoregion divisions accurately capture intuitively-understood regional environmental differences, whereas the finer divisions highlight local condition gradients, ecotones, and clines. Such statistically generated ecoregions can be produced based on user-selected continuous variables, allowing customized regions to be delineated for any specific problem. By creating an objective ecoregion classification, the ecoregion concept is removed from the limitations of human subjectivity, making possible a new array of ecologically useful derivative products. A red-green-blue visualization based on principal components analysis of ecoregion centroids indicates with color the relative combination of environmental conditions found within each ecoregion. Multiple geographic areas can be classified into a single common set of quantitative ecoregions to provide a basis for comparison, or maps of a single area through time can be classified to portray climatic or environmental changes geographically in terms of current conditions. Quantified representativeness can characterize borders between ecoregions as gradual, sharp, or of changing character along their length. Similarity of any ecoregion to all other ecoregions can be quantified and displayed as a "representativeness" map. The representativeness of an existing spatial array of sample locations or study sites can be mapped relative to a set of quantitative ecoregions, suggesting locations for additional samples or sites. In addition, the shape of Hutchinsonian niches in environment space can be defined if a multivariate range map of species occurrence is available.     

Multivariate Analysis of the Ecoregion Delineation for Aquatic Systems

The ecoregion concept is a popular method of understanding the spatial distribution of the environment', however, it has yet to be adequately demonstrated that the environment is distributed in accordance with these bounded units. In this paper, we generated a testable hypothesis based on the current usage of ecoregions: the ecoregion classification will allow for discrimination between lakes of different water quality. The ecoregion classification should also be more effective better than a comparably scaled classification based on political boundaries, land-use class, or random grouping. To test this hypothesis we used the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) lake water chemistry data from the northeast United States. The water chemistry data were reduced to four components using principal component analysis. For comparison to an optimal grouping of these data we used K-means cluster analysis to define the extent at which these lakes could be segregated into distinct classes. Jackknifed discriminant analysis was used to determine the classification rate of ecoregions, the three alternative spatial classification methods, and the clustering algorithm. The classification based on ecoregions was successful for 35% of the lakes included in this study, in comparison to the clustered groups accuracy of 98%. These results suggest that the large scale spatial distribution of ecosystem types is more complicated than that suggested by the present ecoregion boundaries. Further tests of ecoregion delineations are needed and alternative large-scale management strategies should be investigated.     

Topographic, bioclimatic, and vegetation characteristics of three ecoregion classification systems in North America: comparisons along continent-wide transects

Ecoregion classification systems are increasingly used for policy and management decisions, particularly among conservation and natural resource managers. A number of ecoregion classification systems are currently available, with each system defining ecoregions using different classification methods and different types of data. As a result, each classification system describes a unique set of ecoregions. To help potential users choose the most appropriate ecoregion system for their particular application, we used three latitudinal transects across North America to compare the boundaries and environmental characteristics of three ecoregion classification systems [Küchler, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Bailey]. A variety of variables were used to evaluate the three systems, including woody plant species richness, normalized difference in vegetation index (NDVI), and bioclimatic variables (e.g., mean temperature of the coldest month) along each transect. Our results are dominated by geographic patterns in temperature, which are generally aligned north-south, and in moisture, which are generally aligned east-west. In the west, the dramatic changes in physiography, climate, and vegetation impose stronger controls on ecoregion boundaries than in the east. The Küchler system has the greatest number of ecoregions on all three transects, but does not necessarily have the highest degree of internal consistency within its ecoregions with regard to the bioclimatic and species richness data. In general, the WWF system appears to track climatic and floristic variables the best of the three systems, but not in all regions on all transects.     

A regional framework for establishing recovery criteria

Effective assessments of aquatic ecosystem recovery require ecologically sound endpoints against which progress can be measured. Site-by-site assessments of end points and potential recovery trajectories are impractical for water resource agencies. Because of the natural variation among ecosystems, applying a single set of criteria nationwide is not appropriate either. This article demonstrates the use of a regional framework for stratifying natural variation and for determining realistic biological criteria. A map of ecoregions, drawn from landscape characteristics, formed the framework for three statewide case studies and three separate studies at the river basin scale. Statewide studies of Arkansas, Ohio, and Oregon, USA, streams demonstrated patterns in fish assemblages corresponding to ecoregions. The river basin study in Oregon revealed a distinct change at the ecoregion boundary; those in Ohio and Montana demonstrated the value of regional reference sites for assessing recovery. Ecoregions can be used to facilitate the application of ecological theory and to set recovery criteria for various regions of states or of the country. Such a framework provides an important alternative between site-specific and national approaches for assessing recovery rates and conditions.     

Development and Validation of an Aquatic Fine Sediment Biotic Index

The Fine Sediment Biotic Index (FSBI) is a regional, stressor-specific biomonitoring index to assess fine sediment (<2 mm) impacts on macroinvertebrate communities in northwestern US streams. We examined previously collected data of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and substrate particle sizes for 1,139 streams spanning 16 western US Level III Ecoregions to determine macroinvertebrate sensitivity (mostly at species level) to fine sediment. We developed FSBI for four ecoregion groupings that include nine of the ecoregions. The grouping were: the Coast (Coast Range ecoregion) (136 streams), Northern Mountains (Cascades, N. Rockies, ID Batholith ecoregions) (428 streams), Rockies (Middle Rockies, Southern Rockies ecoregions) (199 streams), and Basin and Plains (Columbia Plateau, Snake River Basin, Northern Basin and Range ecoregions) (262 streams). We excluded rare taxa and taxa identified at coarse taxonomic levels, including Chironomidae. This reduced the 685 taxa from all data sets to 206. Of these 93 exhibited some sensitivity to fine sediment which we classified into four categories: extremely, very, moderately, and slightly sensitive; containing 11, 22, 30, and 30 taxa, respectively. Categories were weighted and a FSBI score calculated by summing the sensitive taxa found in a stream. There were no orders or families that were solely sensitive or resistant to fine sediment. Although, among the three orders commonly regarded as indicators of high water quality, the Plecoptera (5), Trichoptera (3), and Ephemeroptera (2) contained all but one of the species or species groups classified as extremely sensitive. Index validation with an independent data set of 255 streams found FSBI scores to accurately predict both high and low levels of measured fine sediment.     

Magnitude,Frequency, and Duration Relations for Suspended Sediment in Stable (“Reference”) Southeastern Streams1

Abstract: Sediment is listed as one of the leading causes of water‐quality impairments in surface waters of the United States (U.S.). A water body becomes listed by a State, Territory or Tribe if its designated use is not being attained (i.e., impaired). In many cases, the prescribed designated use is aquatic health or habitat, indicating that total maximum daily loads (TMDL) targets for sediment should be functionally related to this use. TMDL targets for sediment transport have been developed for many ecoregions over the past several years using suspended‐sediment yield as a metric. Target values were based on data from “reference” streams or reaches, defined as those exhibiting geomorphic characteristics of equilibrium. This approach has proved useful to some states developing TMDLs for suspended sediment, although one cannot conclude that if a stream exceeds the target range, the aquatic ecosystem will be adversely impacted. To address this problem, historical flow‐transport and sediment‐transport data from hundreds of sites in the Southeastern U.S. were re‐examined to develop parameters (metrics) such as frequency and duration of sediment concentrations. Sites determined as geomorphically stable from field evaluations and from analysis of gauging‐station records were sorted by ecoregion. Mean‐daily flow data obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey were applied to sediment‐transport rating relations to determine suspended‐sediment load for each day of record. The frequency and duration that a given concentration was equaled or exceeded were then calculated to produce a frequency distribution for each site. “Reference” distributions were created using the stable sites in each ecoregion by averaging all of the distributions at specified exceedance intervals. As with the “reference” suspended‐sediment yields, there is a broad range of frequency and duration distributions that reflects the hydrologic and sediment‐transport regimes of the ecoregions. Ecoregions such as the Mississippi Valley Loess Plains (#74) maintain high suspended sediment concentrations for extended periods, whereas coastal plain ecoregions (#63 and 75) show much lower concentrations.     

Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions

Among environmental managers, recognition of the importance of integrating management activities across agencies and programs that have different responsibilities for the same geographic areas has created an awareness of the need for a common hierarchical framework of ecological regions (ecoregions) to implement the strategy. Responding to this need in the United States, nine federal agencies have signed a memorandum of understanding on the subject of developing a common framework of ecoregions. However, considerable disagreement over how to define ecoregions and confusion over the strengths and limitations of existing frameworks stand in the way of achieving this goal. This paper presents some perspectives on the nature and definition of ecoregions related to this confusion and provides a brief overview of the weight of evidence approach to mapping ecoregions, using an example initiated by the US Environmental Protection Agency. To effectively implement ecosystem assessment, management, and research at local, regional, and national levels, research is needed to increase our understanding of ecoregions. We must find ways to illustrate the nature of ecoregion boundaries and the variability of characteristics within ecoregions as they relate to management issues. Research must also be conducted on comparing existing frameworks and developing indices of ecological integrity to effectively evaluate their usefulness.     

The use of terrestrial ecoregions as a regional-scale screen for selecting representative reference sites for water quality monitoring

A process has been developed to select watersheds that are representative of terrestrial ecoregions and that are relatively undisturbed by human activity. Using an existing land classification system at two hierarchical levels of resolution, representative subsets (ecodistricts) of large-scale ecoregions were selected, on the basis of their physiographic, biological, and climatological attributes, to represent the ecoregions. This was achieved using a frequency distribution analysis of existing attribute data and choosing the ecodistrict most closely resembling the most common set of conditions for that ecoregion. Within each ecodistrict, river basins were selected through a best-judgement evaluation of land use, coupled with an assessment of the size and location of each river basin, in order to meet the condition of minimal human impact. Preliminary assessment of water quality data collected from six watersheds selected in this way suggests that the process is effective in targeting regional scale river basins exhibiting the desired characteristics.     

Landscape-level ecological regions: Linking state-level ecoregion frameworks with stream habitat classifications

Regionalization is a form of spatial classification, where boundaries are drawn around areas that are relatively homogeneous in landscape characteristics. The process of delineating ecological regions, or ecoregions, includes the analysis of ecosystem structure. To date, ecoregions have been developed at national and state scales for research and resource management. Stream classification is another method to order the variability of aquatic habitats that spans spatial scales from microhabitat to valley segment. In this study, landscape-level ecoregions are developed for the upper Grande Ronde River basin in northeastern Oregon, 3000 sq km in area. The ecoregion framework presented here is proposed to bridge the gap between stream habitat and state-level ecoregion classifications. Classification at this scale is meant to address issues of management at local scales: to aid in sampling design, in extrapolation of the results of site-specific studies, and in the development of best management practices that are more predictive of ecosystem response than current methods.     

Using an ecoregion framework to analyze land-cover and land-use dynamics

The United States has a highly varied landscape because of wide-ranging differences in combinations of climatic, geologic, edaphic, hydrologic, vegetative, and human management (land use) factors. Land uses are dynamic, with the types and rates of change dependent on a host of variables, including land accessibility, economic considerations, and the internal increase and movement of the human population. There is a convergence of evidence that ecoregions are very useful for organizing, interpreting, and reporting information about land-use dynamics. Ecoregion boundaries correspond well with patterns of land cover, urban settlement, agricultural variables, and resource-based industries. We implemented an ecoregion framework to document trends in contemporary land-cover and land-use dynamics over the conterminous United States from 1973 to 2000. Examples of results from six eastern ecoregions show that the relative abundance, grain of pattern, and human alteration of land-cover types organize well by ecoregion and that these characteristics of change, themselves, change through time.     

Ecoregions and ecodistricts: Ecological regionalizations for the Netherlands' environmental policy

For communicating data on the state of the environment to policy makers, various integrative frameworks are used, including regional integration. For this kind of integration we have developed two related ecological regionalizations, ecoregions and ecodistricts, which are two levels in a series of classifications for hierarchically nested ecosystems at different spatial scale levels. We explain the compilation of the maps from existing geographical data, demonstrating the relatively holistic, a priori integrated approach. The resulting maps are submitted to discriminant analysis to test the consistancy of the use of mapping characteristics, using data on individual abiotic ecosystem components from a national database on a 1-km² grid. This reveals that the spatial patterns of soil, groundwater, and geomorphology correspond with the ecoregion and ecodistrict maps. Differences between the original maps and maps formed by automatically reclassifying 1-km² cells with these discriminant components are found to be few. These differences are discussed against the background of the principal dilemma between deductive, a priori integrated, and inductive, a posteriori, classification.     

Ecoregions in the Southern Balkans: Should Their Boundaries Be Revised?

Ecoregion delineations have gained increased attention in Europe, especially following the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD), which provides the European Union’s first policy-relevant ecoregion map. However, the WFD’s ecoregions were created through a minor adaptation of Illies’ (Limnofauna Europaea. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart, 1967/1978) freshwater zoogeographic regions, and the map’s specific boundaries have not been widely evaluated with respect to the WFD’s uses or their biogeographic accuracy. We examined the WFD ecoregion boundaries in Greece and its neighboring Balkan states by comparing them with the most prominent freshwater biogeographic boundaries as shown by riverine freshwater fish assemblages. Classification and ordination analyses of 23 river basin fish assemblages helped delineate natural faunal break boundaries in freshwater species assemblage distributions depicting major biogeographic barriers to aquatic biota dispersal. However, these biogeographic boundaries differ from those delineated in the WFD map, suggesting boundary errors and inconsistencies in the delineation method of the WFD ecoregions. We reviewed specific boundary disagreements and produced a map showing the region’s most prominent freshwater biogeographic boundaries by charting them on watershed borders among the four biotically dissimilar river basin groups in the southern Balkans. This regional evaluation reveals both a need to reconcile disparate approaches to ecoregion mapping and to promote the development of a new policy-relevant inland waters ecoregion framework that would support broad-scale water management and aquatic conservation.     

Landscape Trends in Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States Ecoregions

Landscape pattern and composition metrics are potential indicators for broad-scale monitoring of change and for relating change to human and ecological processes. We used a probability sample of 20-km × 20-km sampling blocks to characterize landscape composition and pattern in five US ecoregions: the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Southeastern Plains, Northern Piedmont, Piedmont, and Blue Ridge Mountains. Land use/land cover (LULC) data for five dates between 1972 and 2000 were obtained for each sample block. Analyses focused on quantifying trends in selected landscape pattern metrics by ecoregion and comparing trends in land cover proportions and pattern metrics among ecoregions. Repeated measures analysis of the landscape pattern documented a statistically significant trend in all five ecoregions towards a more fine-grained landscape from the early 1970s through 2000. The ecologically important forest cover class also became more fine-grained with time (i.e., more numerous and smaller forest patches). Trends in LULC, forest edge, and forest percent like adjacencies differed among ecoregions. These results suggest that ecoregions provide a geographically coherent way to regionalize the story of national land use and land cover change in the United States. This study provides new information on LULC change in the southeast United States. Previous studies of the region from the 1930s to the 1980s showed a decrease in landscape fragmentation and an increase in percent forest, while this study showed an increase in forest fragmentation and a loss of forest cover.     

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WATERSHEDS AND ECOREGIONS1

ABSTRACT: In an effort to adopt more holistic ecosystem approaches to resource assessment and management, many state and federal agencies have begun using watershed or ecoregion frameworks. Although few would question the need to make this move from dealing with problems and issues on a case by case or point-type basis to broader regional contexts, misunderstanding of each of the frameworks has resulted in inconsistency in their use and ultimate effectiveness. The focus of this paper is on the clarification of both frameworks. We stress that the issue is not whether to use watersheds (or basins or hydrologic units) or ecoregions for needs such as developing ecosystem management and non-point source pollution strategies or structuring water quality regulatory programs, but how to correctly use the frameworks together. Definitions, uses, and misuses of each of the frameworks are discussed as well as ways watersheds and ecoregions can be and have been used together effectively to meet resource management needs.     

Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework

A map of ecological regions of the conterminous United States, first published in 1987, has been greatly refined and expanded into a hierarchical spatial framework in response to user needs, particularly by state resource management agencies. In collaboration with scientists and resource managers from numerous agencies and institutions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, the framework has been expanded to cover North America, and the original ecoregions (now termed Level III) have been refined, subdivided, and aggregated to identify coarser as well as more detailed spatial units. The most generalized units (Level I) define 10 ecoregions in the conterminous U.S., while the finest-scale units (Level IV) identify 967 ecoregions. In this paper, we explain the logic underpinning the approach, discuss the evolution of the regional mapping process, and provide examples of how the ecoregions were distinguished at each hierarchical level. The variety of applications of the ecoregion framework illustrates its utility in resource assessment and management.     

Use of ecological regions in aquatic assessments of ecological condition

Ecological regions are areas of similar climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant variables. The makeup of aquatic biological assemblages (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, riparian birds, etc.) varies dramatically over the landscape, as do the environmental stresses that affect the condition of those assemblages. Ecoregions delineate areas where similar assemblages are likely to occur and, therefore, where similar expectations can be established. For this reason, ecological regions have proven to be an important tool for use in the process of ecological assessment. This article describes four examples of the use of ecological regions in important aspects of environmental monitoring and assessment: (1) design of monitoring networks; (2) estimating expected conditions (criteria development); (3) reporting of results; (4) setting priorities for future monitoring and restoration. By delineating geographic areas with similar characteristics, ecological regions provide a framework for developing relevant indicators, setting expectations through the use of regional reference sites, establishing ecoregion-specific criteria and/or standards, presenting results, focusing models based on relationships between landscape and surface water metrics, and setting regional priorities for management and restoration. The Environmental Protection Agency and many state environmental departments currently use ecoregions to aid the development of environmental criteria, to illustrate current environmental condition, and to guide efforts to maintain and restore physical, chemical and biological integrity in lakes, streams, and rivers.     

Variability of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages and Stream Habitat Characteristics Across Hierarchical Landscape Classifications

Streams are naturally hierarchical systems, and their biota are affected by factors effective at regional to local scales. However, there have been only a few attempts to quantify variation in ecological attributes across multiple spatial scales. We examined the variation in several macroinvertebrate metrics and environmental variables at three hierarchical scales (ecoregions, drainage systems, streams) in boreal headwater streams. In nested analyses of variance, significant spatial variability was observed for most of the macroinvertebrate metrics and environmental variables examined. For most metrics, ecoregions explained more variation than did drainage systems. There was, however, much variation attributable to residuals, suggesting high among-stream variation in macroinvertebrate assemblage characteristics. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and multiresponse permutation procedure (MRPP) showed that assemblage composition differed significantly among both drainage systems and ecoregions. The associated R-statistics were, however, very low, indicating wide variation among sites within the defined landscape classifications. Regional delineations explained most of the variation in stream water chemistry, ecoregions being clearly more influential than drainage systems. For physical habitat characteristics, by contrast, the among-stream component was the major source of variation. Distinct differences attributable to stream size were observed for several metrics, especially total number of taxa and abundance of algae-scraping invertebrates. Although ecoregions clearly account for a considerable amount of variation in macroinvertebrate assemblage characteristics, we suggest that a three-tiered classification system (stratification through ecoregion and habitat type, followed by assemblage prediction within these ecologically meaningful units) will be needed for effective bioassessment of boreal running waters.     

Biophysical‐Regulatory Classification and Profiling of Streams Across Management Units and Ecoregions1

Caruso, Brian S. and Joshua Haynes, 2011. Biophysical‐Regulatory Classification and Profiling of Streams Across Management Units and Ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 00(0):1‐22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00522.x Abstract: Aquatic resources management in the United States (U.S.) under Clean Water Act Section 404 has become more complex after recent Supreme Court decisions and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance. Many intermittent/ephemeral and headwater streams may not be jurisdictional if they lack a significant nexus with navigable waters. Streams in semiarid USEPA Region 8 were classified based on hydrologic permanence and stream order using National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Plus and GIS to provide information across broad spatial scales to aid with jurisdictional determinations (JDs). Four classes were developed for profiling across management units and ecoregions. Based on medium‐resolution NHDPlus data, intermittent streams comprise >¾, and first order streams constitute >½ of the total stream length in Region 8. Mountain states and ecoregions have the largest percentage of perennial first order streams, whereas the Dakotas, plains, and desert ecoregions have the greatest percentages of intermittent first order and intermittent higher order streams. In the Upper Colorado River Basin, >50% of reaches are intermittent first order, and 9% are perennial first order. NHDPlus data can significantly underestimate the length of headwater and intermittent streams, but can still be a valuable tool to help develop stream classes and for regional JD planning and analysis. Refinement of the stream classes using high resolution NHD data and other key catchment parameters can improve their utility for JDs.