Advertisement

A multi-indicator spatial similarity approach for evaluating ecological restoration scenarios

  • Ruscena WiederholtEmail author
  • Rajendra Paudel
  • Yogesh Khare
  • Stephen E. DavisIII
  • G. Melodie Naja
  • Stephanie Romañach
  • Leonard Pearlstine
  • Thomas Van Lent
Research Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Context

The greater Everglades region in Florida (USA) is an area of wetlands that has been altered and reduced to 50% of its original area and faces multiple threats. Spatial landscape analysis can help guide a large and complex ecosystem restoration process, involving billions of dollars and multiple groups of stakeholders.

Objectives

To guide Everglades restoration efforts, we evaluated ecological performance of different hydrologic restoration scenarios using a novel technique, the structural similarity index (SSIM), which quantitatively compares similarity between pairs of gridded maps in terms of mean, variance, and covariance.

Methods

Using the SSIM, we evaluated system-wide performance of apple snails, American alligators, Great egrets, and long- and short-hydroperiod vegetation types under multiple restoration scenarios that varied in water management strategies, amounts of water storage, removal of levees and canals (decompartmentalization), and seepage control barriers. We then compared species and habitat responses under each restoration scenario to a target scenario simulating the historical, natural system.

Results

The SSIM approach provides a reliable means of scenario comparison, accounting for both the local magnitude and spatial structure of the underlying data. Our results demonstrated that decompartmentalization benefits the indicator species. In general, scenarios with increased water storage were closer to the target scenario.

Conclusions

This spatial comparison technique is useful for evaluating restoration efforts at multiple spatial scales, ranging from the entire ecosystem down to individual compartments or sub-compartments. The results can be used to inform management and restoration efforts and to guide policy for the greater Everglades area.

Keywords

Quantitative spatial comparison Wetlands restoration Everglades region Structural similarity index Landscape analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers for providing comments on this manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_904_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. Beerens JM, Frederick PC, Noonburg EG, Gawlik DE (2015) Determining habitat quality for species that demonstrate dynamic habitat selection. Ecol Evol 5:5685–5697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beerens JM, Trexler JC, Catano CP (2017) Predicting wading bird and aquatic faunal responses to ecosystem restoration scenarios. Restor Ecol 25:S86–S98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennetts RE, Collopy MW, Rodgers JA (1994) The snail kite in the Florida Everglades: a food specialist in a changing environment. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FlGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkhataria R, Childers DL, Davis SE, Victor E, Gaiser E, Harvey J, Lodge TE, Miralles-Wilhelm F, Naja GM, Osborne T, Rivero RG, Ross MS, Trexler J, Van Lent T, Wetzel PR (2011) Synthesis of Everglades research and ecosystem services. Everglades Foundation, Palmetto Bay, FlGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt LA, Beauchamp JS, Jeffery BM, Cherkiss MS, Mazzotti FJ (2016) Fluctuating water depths affect American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) body condition in the Everglades, Florida, USA. Ecol Indic 67:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell MR, Mazzotti FJ (2004) Characterization of natural and artificial alligator holes. Southeast Nat 3:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darby PC, Bennetts RE, Percival HF (2008) Dry down impacts on apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) demography: implications for wetland water management. Wetlands 28:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darby PC, DeAngelis DL, Romañach SS, Suir K, Bridevaux J (2015) Modeling apple snail population dynamics on the Everglades landscape. Landscape Ecol 30:1497–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis SM, Gunderson LH, Park WA, Richardson JR, Mattson JE (1994) Landscape dimension, composition, and function in a changing Everglades ecosystem. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. Delray Beach, Fl, pp 419–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doren RF, Trexler JC, Gottlieb AD, Harwell MC (2009) Ecological indicators for system-wide assessment of the greater everglades ecosystem restoration program. Ecol Indic 9:S2–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gawlik DE (2002) The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecol Monogr 72:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones EL, Rendell L, Pirotta E, Long JA (2016) Novel application of a quantitative spatial comparison tool to species distribution data. Ecol Indic 70:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kushlan JA, Kushlan MS (1980) Everglades alligator nests: nesting sites for marsh reptiles. Copeia 1980:930–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levine RS, Yorita KL, Walsh MC, Reynolds MG (2009) A method for statistically comparing spatial distribution maps. Int J Health Geogr 8:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lodge TE (2010) The Everglades handbook: understanding the ecosystem, 3rd edn. CRC Press-Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FlGoogle Scholar
  16. Long J, Robertson C (2018) Comparing spatial patterns. Geogr. Compass 12:e12356Google Scholar
  17. Martin J, Kitchens WM, Cattau CE, Oli MK (2008) Relative importance of natural disturbances and habitat degradation on snail kite population dynamics. Endanger Species Res 6:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzotti FJ, Brandt LA (1994) Ecology of the American alligator in a seasonally fluctuating environment. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, pp 485–505Google Scholar
  19. Metzger JP, Esler K, Krug C, Arias M, Tambosi L, Crouzeilles R, Acosta AL, Brancalion PH, D’Albertas F, Duarte GT, Garcia LC (2017) Best practice for the use of scenarios for restoration planning. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 29:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2015) Wetlands of the world, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol 10:e1001247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NAS Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy (1992) Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology and Public Policy. National Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  23. NAS Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, (2003) Adaptive monitoring and assessment for the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. National Academies Press, Washington D. CGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council (2018) Progress toward restoring the Everglades: the seventh biennial review, 2018. The National Academies Press, Washington D. CGoogle Scholar
  25. Novitzki RP, Smith RD, Fretwell (1996) Restoration, creation, and recovery of wetlands: wetland functions, values, and assessmentGoogle Scholar
  26. Ogden JC (1994) A comparison of wading bird nesting colony dynamics (1931–1946 and 1974–1989) as an indication of ecosystem conditions in the southern Everglades. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Fl, pp 533–570Google Scholar
  27. Oteros-Rozas E, Ravera F, Palomo I (2015) Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc 20:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paudel R, Van Lent T, Wiederholt R (2019) Predicting the Everglades ecosystem response to changes in key hydrologic restoration componentsGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearlstine L, Friedman S, Supernaw M (2011) Everglades landscape vegetation succession model (ELVeS) Ecological and Design Document: Freshwater Marsh & Prairie Component version 1.1. Everglades National Park, National Park Service, Homestead, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearlstine LG, Pearlstine EV, Aumen NG (2010) A review of the ecological consequences and management implications of climate change for the Everglades. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:1510–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17:358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robertson C, Long JA, Nathoo FS, Nelson TA, Plouffe CC (2014) Assessing quality of spatial models using the structural similarity index and posterior predictive checks. Geogr Anal 46:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rutchey K, Schall TN, Doren RF, Atkinson A, Ross MS, Jones DT, Madden M, Vilchek L, Bradley KA, Snyder JR, Burch JN (2006) Vegetation classification for South Florida natural areas. US Geological Survey St, Petersburg, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sequeira AM, Bouchet PJ, Yates KL, Mengersen K, Caley MJ (2018) Transferring biodiversity models for conservation: opportunities and challenges. Methods Ecol Evol 9:1250–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shinde D, Pearlstine LG, Brandt LA, Mazzotti FJ, Parry MW, Jeffery BM, LoGalbo A (2014) Alligator production suitability index model (GATOR—PSIM v. 2.0): ecological and design documentation. South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  36. Sklar FH, Chimney MJ, Newman S, McCormick P, Gawlik D, Miao S, McVoy C, Said W, Newman J, Coronado C, Crozier G (2005) The ecological–societal underpinnings of Everglades restoration. Front Ecol Environ 3:161–169Google Scholar
  37. South Florida Water Management District, (2006) Natural system model (NSM). West Palm Beach, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  38. Sykes Jr PW, Rodgers Jr JA, Bennetts RE (1995) Snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis). The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences and the American Ornithologists’ Union No 171, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Tobler WR (1965) Computation of the correspondence of geographical patterns. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 15:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District (1999) Central and Southern Florida project comprehensive review study, final integrated feasibility report and programmatic environmental impact statement. Jacksonville and West Palm Beach, FLGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 13:600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wetzel PR, Davis SE, van Lent T, Davis SM, Henriquez H (2017) Science synthesis for management as a way to advance ecosystem restoration: evaluation of restoration scenarios for the Florida Everglades. Restor Ecol 25:S4–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yee L (2018) Binned relative environmental change indicator (BRECI): a tool to communicate the nature of differences between environmental niche model outputs. Wilfrid Laurier University, MastersGoogle Scholar
  44. Zulian G, Stange E, Woods H, Carvalho L, Dick J, Andrews C, Baró F, Vizcaino P, Barton DN, Nowel M, Rusch GM, Autunes P, Fernandes J, Ferraz D, Ferreira dos Santos R, Aszalós R, Arany I, Czúcz B, Priess J, Hoyer C, Bürger-Patricio G, Lapola D, Mederly P, Halabuk A, Bezak P, Kopperoinen L, Viinikka A (2018) Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support. Ecosyst Serv 29:465–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Everglades FoundationPalmetto BayUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyFort LauderdaleUSA
  3. 3.Everglades National ParkHomesteadUSA

Personalised recommendations