The Wetland Book pp 1803-1810 | Cite as

Wetland Monitoring: Reporting

Reference work entry

Abstract

Approaches for reporting on monitoring data are presented, focusing on indicators, types of reports (e.g., snapshot, scorecards), scales of reporting (from single wetland to national and international scales), and communication of results. Indicators are symbolic representations for communicating a property or trend in a system. They are used to assess current status, monitor or predict changes in condition, or detect sources of stress. Wetland indicators include indicators for wetland health, fauna and water quality indicators, and indicators describing ecosystem services and economic value. Condition reports describe the state of selected, usually biophysical indicators, often in qualitative terms (“poor,” “average,” “good”) and at the time at which the data was collected. Temporal data is used to report on trends in wetland condition over time. Reporting trends, especially over longer time periods, is critical for separating the impact of human activities from external climatic drivers. The Ramsar Convention requires that ecological character be reported for each listed wetland. While the unit of analysis is often a survey plot within a wetland or a wetland complex, wetland and water managers typically operate at a watershed or ecoregional scale, so reporting of wetland monitoring and assessment is also often at this scale or at the scale of the administrative unit of interest. Reporting needs to communicate methods and indicators for wetland condition and trends effectively to the target specialist or nonspecialist audiences, and the simplicity or complexity of indicators used needs to be appropriate. Reporting needs to address error, uncertainty, and overall confidence in measurements of wetland condition to provide decision makers with a sense of the reliability of the data on which decisions are based.

Keywords

Wetland Management Time-Series Data Condition and Trend Ecosystem Services 

References

  1. Banerjee O, Crossman ND, de Groot RS. Ecological processes, functions and ecosystem services: inextricable linkages between wetlands and agricultural systems. In: Wratten S, Sandhu H, Cullen R, Costanza R, editors. Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes. New York: Wiley; 2013. p. 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Cole CA. Inventorying and monitoring wetland condition and restoration potential on a watershed basis with examples from Spring Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania, USA. Environ Manag. 2006;38:673–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole CA, Kentula ME. Monitoring and assessment - what to measure...and why. In: LePage BA, editor. Wetlands. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colloff MJ, Caley P, Saintilan N, Pollino CA, Crossman ND. Long-term ecological trends of flow-dependent ecosystems in a major regulated river basin. Mar Freshw Res. 2015;66(11):957–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahl TE. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. Davies PE, Harris JH, Hillman TJ, Walker KF. The sustainable rivers audit: assessing river ecosystem health in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Mar Freshw Res. 2010;61:764–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis J, Brock M. Detecting unacceptable change in the ecological character of Ramsar wetlands. Ecol Manage Restor. 2008;9:26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Euliss Jr N, Mushet D, Smith L, Conner W, Burkett V, Wilcox D, Hester M, Zheng H. Ecosystem services: developing sustainable management paradigms based on wetland functions and processes. In: Anderson JT, Davis CA, editors. Wetland techniques. Netherlands: Springer; 2013. p. 181–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finlayson CM. Forty years of wetland conservation and wise use. Aquatic Conserv-Marine Freshw Ecosyst. 2012;22:139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haukos DA. Study design and logistics. In: Anderson JT, Davis CA, editors. Wetland techniques. Netherlands: Springer; 2013. p. 1–47.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs AD, Kentula ME, Herlihy AT. Developing an index of wetland condition from ecological data: An example using HGM functional variables from the Nanticoke watershed, USA. Ecol Indic. 2010;10:703–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotze DC, Ellery WN, Macfarlane DM, Jewitt GPW. A rapid assessment method for coupling anthropogenic stressors and wetland ecological condition. Ecol Indic. 2012;13:284–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moldan B, Dahl AL. Challenges to sustainability indicators. In: Hak T, Moldan B, AL D, editors. Sustainability indicators. A scientific assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2007. p. 1–24.Google Scholar
  14. Ramsar Convention. Resolution IX.1 Annex A: a conceptual framework for the wise use of wetlands and the maintenance of their ecological character. Ramsar Iran. 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Ramsar Convention Secretariat. The ramsar convention manual. A guide to the convention on wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). 6 ed. Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat; 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Ringold PL, Boyd J, Landers D, Weber M. What data should we collect? A framework for identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11:98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stratford CJ, Acreman MC, Rees HG. A simple method for assessing the vulnerability of wetland ecosystem services. Hydrol Sci J. 2011;56:1485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thong MT, Thuy HLT, Hoang VT. Ecosystem assessment of Cuu Long River Delta Wetland, Vietnam. J Environ Sci Manag. 2013;16:36–44.Google Scholar
  19. Veselka WIV, Anderson J. Wetland indices of biological integrity. In: Anderson JT, Davis CA, editors. Wetland techniques. Netherlands: Springer; 2013. p. 1–28.Google Scholar
  20. Wardrop D, Kentula M, Stevens D, Jensen S, Brooks R. Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Upper Juniata watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands. 2007;27:416–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Williams P, Biggs J, Crowe A, Murphy J, Nicolet P, Weatherby A, Dunbar M. Countryside survey: Ponds report from 2007. Pond conservation and NERC/centre for ecology & hydrology (CEH Project Number: C03259). Technical Report Number 7/07. 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh GiffordWallingfordUK

Personalised recommendations