The scope and severity of white-nose syndrome on hibernating bats in North America

Assessing the scope and severity of threats is necessary for evaluating impacts on populations to inform conservation planning. Quantitative threat assessment often requires monitoring programs that provide reliable data over relevant spatial and temporal scales, yet such programs can be difficult to justify until there is an apparent stressor. Leveraging efforts of wildlife management agencies to record winter counts of hibernating bats, we collated data for 5 species from over 200 sites across 27 U.S. states and 2 Canadian provinces from 1995 to 2018 to determine the impact of white-nose syndrome (WNS), a deadly disease of hibernating bats. We estimated declines of winter counts of bat colonies at sites where the invasive fungus that causes WNS (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) had been detected to assess the threat impact of WNS. Three species undergoing species status assessment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Myotis septentrionalis, Myotis lucifugus, and Perimyotis subflavus) declined by more than 90%, which warrants classifying the severity of the WNS threat as extreme based on criteria used by NatureServe. The scope of the WNS threat as defined by NatureServe criteria was large (36% of Myotis lucifugus range) to pervasive (79% of Myotis septentrionalis range) for these species. Declines for 2 other species (Myotis sodalis and Eptesicus fuscus) were less severe but still qualified as moderate to serious based on NatureServe criteria. Data-sharing across jurisdictions provided a comprehensive evaluation of scope and severity of the threat of WNS and indicated regional differences that can inform response efforts at international, national, and state or provincial jurisdictions. We assessed the threat impact of an emerging infectious disease by uniting monitoring efforts across jurisdictional boundaries and demonstrated the importance of coordinated monitoring programs, such as the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat), for data-driven conservation assessments and planning.     

A Comparison of Single and Multiple Habitat Protocols for Collecting Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams1

Abstract: In 2003, we compared two benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods that are used for rapid biological assessment of wadeable streams. A single habitat method using kick sampling in riffles and runs was compared to a multiple habitat method that sampled all available habitats in proportion of occurrence. Both methods were performed side‐by‐side at 41 sites in lower gradient streams of the Piedmont and Northern Piedmont ecoregions of the United States, where riffle habitat is less abundant. Differences in sampling methods were examined using similarity indices, two multimetric indices [the family‐level Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) and the species‐level Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII)], their component metrics, and bioassessment endpoints based on each index. Index scores were highly correlated between single and multiple habitat field methods, and sampling method comparability, based on comparison of similarities between and within sampling methods, was particularly high for species level data. The VSCI scores and values of most of its component metrics were not significantly higher for one particular method, but relationships between single and multiple habitat values were highly variable for percent Ephemeroptera, percent chironomids, and percent Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Hydropsychidae excluded). A similar level of variability in the relationship was observed for the MBII and most of its metrics, but Ephemeroptera richness, percent individuals in the dominant five taxa, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores all exhibited differences in values between single and multiple habitat field methods. When applied to multiple habitat samples, the MBII exhibited greater precision, higher index scores, and higher assessment categories than when applied to single habitat samples at the same sites. In streams with limited or no riffle habitats, the multiple habitat method should provide an adequate sample for biological assessment, and at sites with abundant riffle habitat, little difference would be expected between the single and multiple habitat field methods. Thus, in geographic areas with a wide variety of stream types, the multiple habitat method may be more desirable. Even so, the variability in the relationship between single and multiple habitat methods indicates that the data are not interchangeable, and we suggest that any change in sampling method should be accompanied by a recalibration of any existing assessment tool (e.g., multimetric index) with data collected using the new method, regardless of taxonomic level.     

The ecological basis for simulating phytoplankton responses to environmental change (PROTECH)

The theory and mathematical development of a model, called PROTECH, are presented. The model simulates the dynamic responses of up to eight species of phytoplankton to environmental variability in lakes and reservoirs. PROTECH models were developed originally to fulfil a commercial, decision-support role in the management of industrial water quality, where plankton growth is an issue. The progressive refinements to the model nevertheless have a robust ecological basis. This makes PROTECH a promising tool for researching plankton community ecology. The model calculates exponents describing growth and attrition, from a base of the maximum growth rates of algal species in culture. Subject to defined thresholds, growth integrates variability in the fluxes of light and nutrients. The paper develops this philosophy and its embodiment into the structure of the model. Examples of its authenticated, validated and sensitivity-tested outputs are presented.     

The Applicability of National Critical Loads Data in Assessing Designated Sites

Critical loads have been successfully used within Europe in the development of effects-based policies for pollution abatement, including the Second Sulphur Protocol and the Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone (CLRTAP, 1979). This success has encouraged the UK Environment Agency and Conservation Agencies to use the national critical load maps as a screening tool in assessing the threats from acidification and eutrophication to designated (Natura 2000) sites. The UK maps of critical loads are based on national-scale data sets appropriate for national-scale assessments, and were never intended for use at the site-specific level. Site-based assessments are often targeted at Special Areas of Conservation, a sub-set of the UK Natura 2000 sites. The spatial data available includes the boundaries of the sites but not the location of the designated features. Ancillary data is variable from one site to another; habitat types may be described in detail with cross-reference to classes of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC: Rodwell, 1991 et seq), but information available on soils and geology is generalised and has not been related to the habitats or species being protected. Hence it can be difficult to relate the individual sites to the national maps, even where appropriate to do so. This paper examines the underlying uncertainties in the national critical load maps showing how the maps could give misleading results if used for site-specific assessments. It also includes advice on how to determine when the national data may be appropriate as a policy-tool at the site-level.