Transcript Draft Multimetric Indices for Colorado

Draft Multimetric
Indices for Colorado
Data Preparation

Established reference and stressed criteria


Identified reference and stressed sites
Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric
Colorado Ref NMS
Colorado Ref NMS
20
21
22
25
26
20
21
22
25
26
Axis 3
Eco_L3
Axis 2
Eco_L3
Axis 1
Axis 1
Colorado Ref NMS
Eco_L3
Axis 3
20
21
22
25
26
Axis 2
Ecoregions
Colorado Plateaus
Southern Rockies
AZ-NM Plateau
Wes tern High Plains20
SW Tablelands
Colorado Plateaus
21 Southern Rockies
22 Arizona/New Mexico Plateau
25 Western High Plains
26 Southwestern Tablelands
Colorado Ref NMS
Colorado Ref NMS
BioRegNm
BioRegNm
1
2
3
Axis 3
Axis 2
1 Mountains
2 Plains
3 Xeric
Axis 1
Axis 1
Colorado Ref NMS
BioRegNm
Axis 3
1
2
3
Bioregions
1 Mountains
2 Plains
3 Xeric
Axis 2
Data Preparation

Established reference and stressed criteria





Established reference and stressed sites
Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric
Established consistent taxonomic rules
(OTU)
Assembled metrics
Removed site duplicates and replicates
Metric Evaluation



Looked at metric range and variability by region
Considered metric ecological “sense”
Investigated metrics discrimination efficiency (DE)


Ability to discriminate a priori reference from stressed
(percent stressed < 25th % reference)
Examined metric redundancy


First principles (ie E taxa and EPT taxa)
Pearson product-moment correlation
Metric Scoring

Scored candidate metrics from 0-100 based
on 5th and 95th percentiles

Decreaser scores = 100*(value/95th)

Increaser scores = 100*[(Max-value)/(95th-5th)]
Index Construction



Constructed at least 10 potential indices
using variable combinations of candidate
metrics for each region
Minimized redundancy
Maximized categorical representation


Composition, richness, tolerance, habit, and
functional feeding
Calculated index DE
Mountains
Mountains – Draft Indices

Index 1
Composition

Percent Chironomidae which are
Cricotopus and Chironomus
Richness

Diptera Taxa

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

Percent Tolerant

Percent Trichoptera which are
Hydropsychidae

Index 2
Composition

Percent Chironomidae which are
Cricotopus and Chironomus
Richness

Total Taxa
Tolerance

HBI

Percent Tolerant

Percent Trichoptera which are
Hydropsychidae
Mountains – Draft Indices
100
Index 1
Composition

Percent Chironomidae
which are Cricotopus
and Chironomus
Richness

Diptera Taxa

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

Percent Tolerant

Percent Trichoptera
which are
Hydropsychidae
90
Mountains Index 1
80
70
60
50
40
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 85%
CV = 8%
30
Ref
Stressed
Mountains – Draft Indices
100
Index 2
Composition

Percent Chironomidae
which are Cricotopus
and Chironomus
Richness

Total Taxa
90
Mountains Index 2
80
Tolerance

Percent Tolerant

Percent Trichoptera
which are
Hydropsychidae
70
60
50
40
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 90%
CV = 8%
30
Ref
Stressed
Mountains




Richest dataset
Reference and stressed sites variable
Discrimination Efficiencies were good
3/5 categories represented
Plains
Plains – Draft Indices

Index 1
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

HBI
Habit

Clinger Taxa

Index 2
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete

Percent EPT
Tolerance

HBI
Trophic

Percent Predators

Index 3
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

HBI
Habit

Percent Sprawlers
Plains – Draft Indices
100
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete
90
80
Plains Index 1
70
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

HBI
Habit

Clinger Taxa
60
50
40
30
20
Index 1
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 100%
CV = 20%
Ref
Stressed
Plains – Draft Indices
100
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete

Percent EPT
90
80
70
Plains Index 2
Index 2
60
Tolerance

HBI
50
40
30
20
Trophic

Percent Predators
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 100%
CV = 19%
Ref
Stressed
Plains – Draft Indices
100
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete
90
80
Plains Index 3
70
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

HBI
Habit

Percent Sprawlers
60
50
40
30
20
Index 3
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 100%
CV = 17%
Ref
Stressed
Plains



Fewer reference and stressed sites
Discrimination Efficiencies 100%
3/5 to 4/5 categories represented
Xeric
Xeric – Draft Indices

Index 1

Index 2

Index 3
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance
Richness
Richness
Tolerance
Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Sprawler Taxa
Trophic

Percent Filterers

Tolerance

HBI

Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Percent Sprawler
Trophic

Percent Filterers

Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Sprawler Taxa
Trophic

Percent Filterers
Xeric – Draft Indices
Index 1
85
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
80
75
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance
Xeric Index 1
70
65
Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Sprawler Taxa
Trophic

Percent Filterers

60
55
50
45
40
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 72%
CV = 13%
Ref
Stressed
Xeric – Draft Indices
Index 2
85
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
80
75
Richness
Xeric Index 2
70
Tolerance
65
Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Sprawler Taxa
Trophic

Percent Filterers

60
55
50
45
40
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE = 94%
CV = 8%
Ref
Stressed
Xeric – Draft Indices
Index 3
85
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
80
75
Richness
Xeric Index 3
70
Tolerance

HBI

Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Percent Sprawler
Trophic

Percent Filterers
65
60
55
50
45
40
Median
25%-75%
Non-Outlier Range
Outliers
Extremes
DE= 94%
CV = 7%
Ref
Stressed
Xeric



Fewer reference sites
Discrimination Efficiencies were very good
4/5 to 5/5 categories represented
Review
Mountains MMI
Composition

Percent Chironomidae
which are Cricotopus
and Chironomus
Richness

Diptera Taxa

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

Percent Tolerant

Percent Trichoptera
which are
Hydropsychidae
DE = 85%
CV = 8%
Ref Mean = 82
Str Mean = 68
Plains MMI
Xeric MMI
Composition

Percent
Chironomidae
which are
Cricotopus and
Chironomus

Percent Diptera

Percent Oligochaete
Richness

EPT Taxa
Tolerance

HBI
Habit

Percent Sprawlers
Composition

Percent Coleoptera

Percent
Ephemeroptera
Tolerance

HBI

Percent Dominant

Percent EPT which
are Hydropsychidae
Habit

Percent Sprawler
Trophic

Percent Filterers
DE = 100%
CV = 17%
Ref Mean = 74
Str Mean = 43
DE = 94%
CV = 7%
Ref Mean = 67
Str Mean = 60