Advertisement

The Wetland Book pp 1779-1786 | Cite as

Ecological Monitoring of Wetlands

  • Tom Dahl
Reference work entry

Abstract

Wetland resource planning, management, modeling, and policy formulation rely on scientifically sound information regarding the extent, type, and condition of wetlands on the landscape. This requires characterization of wetland resources as well as developing an understanding of how these systems respond to environmental change. Wetland monitoring is defined as the systemic observation and recording of current and changing conditions and provides these information needs. The choice of techniques is dependent on the programmatic objectives as well as the physical landscape and geographic extent of the monitoring effort. Mapping, inventories, surveys, and statistical sampling are all methods of data collection that serve as a basis for monitoring. Short-term monitoring is useful for project-level planning and compliance, mitigation, or remediation and for assessing the immediate impacts of specific events such as hazardous spills and other risk assessment studies. Longer-term monitoring is needed to assess ecosystems or landscape-level changes in hydrology, habitat fragmentation, climate change, responses of vegetation to stressors, species utilization of wetlands, and other ecological trends resulting from cumulative impacts. Monitoring for change in wetland extent provides crucial information for the development of national policy and legislation, governance of financial and technical assistance, tax reform, wetlands management strategies, research, and strategic planning efforts involving wetlands. Combination with monitoring of wetland condition (vegetation, soils, hydrology, water quality, or algae) has allowed the development of comprehensive wetland monitoring programs.

Keywords

Wetland monitoring Wetland assessment Spatial assessment Wetland indicators 

References

  1. Backhaus R, Beule B. Efficiency evaluation of satellite data products in environmental policy. Space Policy. 2005;21:173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Council on Environmental Quality. Conserving America’s wetlands implementing the President’s goal. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President; 2005. 37 p.Google Scholar
  3. Dahl TE. Remote sensing as a tool for monitoring wetland habitat change. In: Aguirre-Bravo C, others, editors. Monitoring science and technology: unifying knowledge for sustainability in the Western Hemisphere. Proceedings RMRS-P-000, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 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. 108 p. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Status-And-Trends-2009/index.html.Google Scholar
  5. Dahl TE, Stedman SM. Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; 2013. 46 p.Google Scholar
  6. Dahl TE, Watmough MD. Current approaches to wetland status and trends monitoring in prairie Canada and the continental United States of America. Can J Remote Sens. 2007;33 Suppl 1:S17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO. The world’s mangroves 1980–2005, FAO forestry paper 153. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2007. 77 p.Google Scholar
  8. Finlayson CM. Monitoring ecological change in wetlands. In: Aubrecht G, Dick G, Prentice C, editors. Monitoring the ecological change in wetlands of Middle Europe: proceedings of an international workshop, Linz, vol. 30. Wetlands International Publication; 1994. p. 163–80.Google Scholar
  9. Finlayson CM, Davidson NC (collators). Global review of wetland resources and priorities for wetland inventory: summary report. In: Finlayson CM, Spiers AG, editors. Global review of wetland resources and priorities for wetland inventory. Supervising scientist report 144. Canberra; 1999.Google Scholar
  10. Genet JA, Olsen AR. Assessing depressional wetland quantity and quality using a probabilistic sampling design in the Redwood River Watershed, Minnesota, USA. Wetlands. 2008;28(2):324–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halabisky M, Hannam M, Long AL, Vondrasek C, Moskal LM. The sharper image: hyperspatial remote sensing of wetlands. Wetl Sci Pract. 2013;30(2):12–31.Google Scholar
  12. Joosten H. The global peatland CO2 picture – peatland status and emissions in all countries of the world. Ede: Wetlands International; 2009.Google Scholar
  13. Lopez RD, Lyon JG, Lyon LK, Lopez DK. Wetland landscape characterization. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013. 295 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller JA, Rogan J. Using GIS and remote sensing for ecological mapping and monitoring. In: Mesev V, editor. Integration of GIS and remote sensing. New York: Wiley; 2007. p. 233–68.Google Scholar
  15. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A comprehensive wetland assessment, monitoring and mapping strategy for Minnesota. Saint Paul: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; 2006. 42 p.Google Scholar
  16. Ozesmi S, Bauer M. Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag. 2002;10:381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scozzafava ME, Dahl TE, Faulkner C, Price M. Assessing status, trends, and condition of wetlands in the United States. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute; 2007. Natl Wetl Newsl 2007; 29(3).Google Scholar
  18. Spellerberg IF. Monitoring ecological change. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. 399 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. USEPA. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using algae to assess environmental conditions in wetlands, EPA-822-R-02-021. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; 2002.Google Scholar
  20. USEPA. National coastal condition report IV, EPA-842-R-10-003. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water; 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nccr.Google Scholar
  21. USEPA. Monitoring and assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2013. On-line resource: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/monitoring.cfm. Accessed Oct 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wetlands Status and TrendsU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSt. PetersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations