1 / 26

Michael J. Dunbar , Simon M. Smart, Roger Baker, Ralph T. Clarke,

Michael J. Dunbar , Simon M. Smart, Roger Baker, Ralph T. Clarke, Francois K. Edwards, Lindsay C. Maskell, John F. Murphy, Lisa R. Norton, Paul Scholefield. Freshwater Stressor-Response relationships: Countryside Survey.

milton
Download Presentation

Michael J. Dunbar , Simon M. Smart, Roger Baker, Ralph T. Clarke,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michael J. Dunbar, Simon M. Smart, Roger Baker, Ralph T. Clarke, Francois K. Edwards, Lindsay C. Maskell, John F. Murphy, Lisa R. Norton, Paul Scholefield Freshwater Stressor-Response relationships: Countryside Survey

  2. The way we investigate ecological response to anthropogenic stressors tends to be very one-dimensional Sometimes people go to the other extreme: all available abiotic variables -> multivariate ecological data

  3. Impact of land management (agriculture) Land cover studies • Spatial • Large-scale • Correlative • Lack mechanism Field experiments • Temporal • Water quality focus • Can we generalise?

  4. Impacts arising from “use” of land Multiple mechanisms for impact Often partly correlated Probably interacting

  5. Suren and Riis 2010

  6. http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk

  7. What is Countryside Survey?

  8. Countryside Survey Monitored since 1978 (~8 year intervals) 600+ 1km² plots • Broad Habitats • Terrestrial vegetation • Soils • Freshwater • Headwater streams (~300 locations): 1990, 1998, 2007 only • Ponds Land cover map of GB

  9. Statistical approach Past: separate “stock” and “change” estimates Stock: what’s there in any one survey, based on all the data Change: from survey to survey, based on common data points • Survey changes over time Alternative: • Mixed-effects approach: consistent

  10. Freshwater: what’s measured? Headwater stream (1st to 3rd order) • Macroinvertebrates • Physical habitat modification and quality (RHS) • Spot chemistry sample • Macrophytes Also Ponds… 1990,1998,2007 1998,2007

  11. Macroinvertebrates Standard net kick sample Identification in CEH labs Metrics used here: • Average Score per Taxon (ASPT)* • Number of scoring taxa (NTAXA)* • Community Conservation Index (CCI) * Reference condition corrected (O/E ratio)

  12. Headwater Streams: macroinvertebrates • England: broad ongoing improvement in biological quality • Low scores in 1990 • Dunbar, M., Murphy, J., Clarke, R., Baker, R., Davies, C., Scarlett, P., 2010. Countryside Survey: Headwater Streams Report from 2007. Technical Report No. 8/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 67pp. (CEH Project Number: C03259) • Fixed effect for year: multiple comparison problem: glht package in R <- Biological Metric -> <- Survey years ->

  13. Spatial pattern

  14. Overall approach Metric ~ Stressors + Environmental variables (including interactions) Multilevel (mixed effects) linear regression (all variables) • Separate spatial and temporal patterns Generalised additive models • Identify non-linearities: averaged 1998 and 2007 data

  15. Explanatory variables

  16. Examples of resectioning <- “Natural” channel Resectioned channel ->

  17. Multilevel (mixed effects) linear regression Metric ~ Stressors + Environmental variables • Samples (years) nested within CS squares • Separate spatial and temporal patterns • Test selected two-way interactions • Has intensive land impact changed over time? • Broad Habitat % * Year • Do you see differing flow effects across different land cover types? • Broad Habitat % * Flow • Are more engineered channels more sensitive to high nutrient levels? • SRP * Resectioning

  18. Results: main effects Negative effects  • Soluble Reactive Phosphorus concentration • Extent of resectioning of the channel • % Arable Land Positive effects  • Riparian woody cover • Channel substrate diversity Mixture of effects ?? • % Improved Grassland

  19. Space vs Time Figure 2. Set 1 spatial (A) and temporal (B) relationships with land cover characteristics

  20. Interactions: Land Cover and Time

  21. Interactions: Land Cover and SRP

  22. GAMs on time-averaged data (non-linear) Results using a multi-model inference approach with five main effects and all combinations of two-way interactions (as bivariate smooths)

  23. Conclusions Clear impact of stressors at three spatial scales on stream ecological quality and biodiversity Strongest impacts from local conditions: habitat and water quality Encouraging results given fairly basic biological indices Can pick up a beneficial effect of reduced riparian management

  24. Statistical and data issues Non-linearities common Interactions sensitive to model chosen (mis-specification) Spatial patterns stronger than temporal General lack of data at the high stressor ends of the scale

More Related