The Wetland Book pp 1723-1728 | Cite as

Wetland Assessment Methods: Biological Assessment

Reference work entry

Abstract

The central purpose of biological wetland assessment is the quantitative and qualitative description and enumeration of the species, communities, and habitats present. To achieve this, often a basic inventory is needed of the wetland attributes (physical properties, species composition, and structure) and of soil, water chemistry, and hydrological characteristics. Specific aims may be: estimating the nature conservation value at a regional, national, or international scale; determining the need for protective measures; determining the contribution of the wetland to ecosystem services and the scope for exploitation; informing management and restoration strategies; or a comparison to reference conditions. Biological assessment can make use of a wide range of techniques including broad habitat mapping (e.g., terrestrial survey, aerial photography, satellite imagery), detailed community mapping, quadrat and/or transect surveys and phytosociological analysis, population counts of target species (e.g., as indicators of biological integrity or for conservation goals), fixed-point photography, sub-aqua diving surveys, remotely controlled cameras, structured grapnel surveys, and integrated survey systems. Nature conservation agencies have developed rapid assessment methods, which express the biological integrity of the wetland in metrics (indicators) that may support management decisions but can also be used to communicate information about the status of wetlands to the general public. A main future challenge is to develop consistency in assessment approaches and to ensure the availability of basic information, which will improve the comparability of assessment results and their application in policy making.

Keywords

Wetland assessment Biological assessment Wetland health Wetland conservation 

References

  1. Danielson TJ. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: #1 introduction to wetland biological assessment. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2002.Google Scholar
  2. Davies CE, Moss D, Hill MO. EUNIS habitat classification revised 2004, Report to the European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity. Brussels: European Environment Agency; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Doniţă N, Popescu A, Paucă-Comănescu M, Mihăilescu S, Biriş I-A. Habitatele din România. Bucureşti: Editura Tehnică Silvică; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Natural England. SSSI condition assessment: a guide for owners and occupiers. Peterborough: Natural England; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Natural England. Higher level stewardship: farm environment plan (FEP) manual. 3rd ed. Peterborough: Natural England; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats – EUR28. Brussels: DG Environment – Nature and Biodiversity; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Hill D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P. Handbook of biodiversity methods: survey, evaluation and monitoring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. JNCC. Common standards monitoring guidance for lowland wetlands habitats. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Karr JR, Dudley DR. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environ Manag. 1981;5:55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keddy PA. Wetland ecology: principles and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. NRA. River corridor surveys: methods and procedures, NRA conservation technical handbook No. 1. Bristol: National Rivers Authority; 1992.Google Scholar
  12. Rodwell JS. British plant communities, 5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991–2000.Google Scholar
  13. Sutherland WJ, editor. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  14. Treweek J. Ecological impact assessment. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. Wright JF, Moss D, Clarke RT, Furse MT. Biological assessment of river quality using the new version of RIVPACS (RIVPACS III). In: Boon PJ, Howell DL, editors. Freshwater quality: defining the indefinable? Edinburgh: The Stationery Office; 1997. p. 102–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh GiffordWallingfordUK
  2. 2.NERC Centre for Ecology and HydrologySwindonUK

Personalised recommendations