The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates

There is no longer any doubt that cumulative impacts have important effects on wetland vertebrates. Interactions of species diversity and community structure produce a complex pattern in which environmental impacts can play a highly significant role. Various examples show how wetlands maintain the biotic diversity within and among vertebrate populations, and some of the ways that environmental perturbations can interact to reduce this diversity.The trophic and habitat pyramids are useful organizing concepts. Habitat fragmentation can have severe effects at all levels, reducing the usable range of the larger habitat generalists while threatening the genetic integrity of small, isolated populations. The complexity of trophic interactions, and the propensity, or necessity, of vertebrates to switch from one food source to another—something we know little about—makes using food chain support as a variable for predicting environmental impacts very questionable.Historical instances illustrate the effects of the accumulation of impacts on vertebrates. At present it is nearly impossible to predict the result of three or more different kinds of perturbations, although long-range effects can be observed. One case in point is waterfowl; while their ingestion of lead shot, harvesting by hunters during migration, and loss of habitat have caused waterfowl populations to decline, the proportional responsibility of these factors has not been determined.Further examples show multiplicative effects of similar actions, effects with long time lags, diffuse processes in the landscape that may have concentrated effects on a component subsystem, and a variety of other interactions of increasing complexity. Not only is more information needed at all levels; impacts must be assessed on a landscape or regional scale to produce informed management decisions. I conclude that a system of replicate wetland reserves that are allowed to interact naturally with the surrounding landscape will be more effective in preserving biotic diversity than isolated sanctuaries.     

General concepts for measuring cumulative impacts on wetland ecosystems

Because environmental impacts accumulate over space and time, analysis is difficult, and we must incorporate the most recent scientifically defensible information and methods into the process. Methods designed to deal specifically with cumulative impacts include checklists of characteristics or processes, matrices of interactions (rated according to their level of importance) between disturbance activities and environmental conditions, nodal networks or pathways that depict probable effects of disturbances, and dynamic system models. These methods have been tested over the past decade and have proven generally successful.Landscape perspectives have emerged as especially helpful in analyzing cumulative effects, and have focused specific attention on questions of spatial and temporal scale, while leading to recognition of the complexity of ecosystem processes in general. An evaluation of several cases studies by the Commission on Life Sciences of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences emphasizes the importance of interactions and cumulative effects, but recognizes that current knowledge of the processes involved is insufficient to make specific recommendations for conceptual frameworks.The conceptual approach suggested by Preston and Bedford (1988) addresses many critical issues, such as the need to define dimensions of scale, and the importance of wetland size, shape, and location in the landscape. This approach and similar ones must be tested and evaluated so that a consensus may eventually emerge.A cumulative impact matrix is proposed that sets up additive, synergistic, and indirect categories, each capable of variation in space and time. Every interaction would be carefully examined to determine the likelihood of cumulative impact in any of the six categories. Because of its magnifying glass approach, such a matrix could be a very useful analytical tool, using existing methods to uncover all the information presently available about the behavior of the ecosystem of concern.     

Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status,perspectives, and prospects

The incongruity between the regional and national scales at which wetland losses are occurring, and the project-specific scale at which wetlands are regulated and studied, has become obvious. This article presents a synthesis of recent efforts by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Ecosystems Research Center at Cornell University to bring wetland science and regulation into alignment with the reality of the cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on entire landscapes and regions. The synthesis is drawn from the other articles in this volume, the workshop that initiated them, and the scientific literature. It summarizes the status of our present scientific understanding, discusses means by which to actualize the existing potential for matching the scales of research and regulation with the scales at which effects are observed, and provides guidelines for building a stronger scientific base for landscape-level assessments of cumulative effects. It also provides the outlines for a synoptic and qualitative approach to cumulative effects assessment based on a reexamination of the generic assessment framework we proposed elsewhere in this volume.The primary conclusion to be drawn from the articles and the workshop is that a sound scientific basis for regulation will not come merely from acquiring more information on more variables. It will come from recognizing that a perceptual shift to larger temporal, spatial, and organizational scales is overdue. The shift in scale will dictate different—not necessarily more—variables to be measured in future wetland research and considered in wetland regulation.     

Using the multiple capitals framework to connect indicators of regional cumulative impacts of mining and pastoralism in the Murray Darling Basin,Australia

It is commonly recognized that there are constraints to successful regional-scale assessment and monitoring of cumulative impacts because of challenges in the selection of coherent and measurable indicators of the effects. It has also been sensibly declared that the connections between components in a region are as important as the state of the elements themselves. These have previously been termed “linked” cumulative impacts/effects. These connections can be difficult to discern because of a complicated set of interactions and unexpected linkages. In this paper we diagnose that a significant cause of these constraints is the selection of indicators without due regard for their inter-relationships in the formulation of the indicator set. The paper examines whether the common “forms of capital”, i.e., natural (renewable and non-renewable), manufactured, social, human and financial capitals, framework is a potential organizing structure. We examine a large region in western NSW Australia where the predominant production systems are mining and grazing for production of wool, beef and lamb. Production in both is driven by consumption of a non-renewable resource, i.e., ore for mining and topsoil for grazing, the latter on the basis that loss rate estimates far exceed soil formation rates. We propose that the challenge of identifying connections of components within and between capital stores can be approached by explicitly separating stores of capital and the flows of capital between stores and between elements within stores, so-called capital fluxes. We attempt to acquire data from public sources for both capital stores and fluxes. The question of whether these data are a sufficient base for regional assessment, with particular reference to connections, is discussed. The well-described challenge of a comparative common currency for stores and fluxes is also discussed. We conclude that the data acquisition is relatively successful for stores and fluxes. A number of linked impacts are identified and discussed. The potential use of money as the common currency for stores and fluxes of capital is considered. The basic proposition is that replacement or preservation costs be used for this. We conclude that the study is sufficiently positive to consider further research in fully-coupled models of capital stores and fluxes.