United States National Heath and Environmental EPA/600/R-10/140
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory October2010
Protection Agency Corvallis, OR 97333
METRIC SIMILARITY IN VEGETATION-BASED
WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHODS
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-10/140
October, 2010
METRIC SIMILARITY IN VEGETATION-BASED
WETLAND ASSESSMENT METHODS
BY
John J. Mack1 and Mary E. Kentula2
Division of Natural Resources
Cleveland Metroparks
450 Valley Parkway
Fairview Park, Ohio 44126
2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
Corvallis, OR 97333
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
-------
11
-------
NOTICE
This evaluation of vegetation metrics for use in wetland assessment methods was funded
wholly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subject to review by the
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and Western Ecology Division
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of
the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
The correct citation for this document is:
Mack, J. J. and M.E. Kentula. 2010. Metric Similarity in Vegetation-Based Wetland
Assessment Methods. EPA/600/R-10/140. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to all of the investigators who graciously provided copies of articles that were in
press or otherwise difficult to obtain. We apologize in advance to the authors for any errors in
summarizing their methods or for a too cursory treatment of what they consider to be a
fundamental point.
Special thanks to Christina Hargiss (North Dakota State University), Abby Rokosch
(U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station), Elizabeth Riley (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water) and Robert Ozretich (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development) who all contributed their valuable time to review
a previous version of this report. We greatly appreciated the technical editing done by Joan
Hurley (National Asian Pacific Center on Aging/Senior Environmental Employee, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division). Her attention to detail, especially checking all the citations in the
document, greatly improved the final version of this report.
This project was funded under U.S. EPA Contract No. EP07R0000064 to John J. Mack.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 METHODS 2
3.0 RESULTS 4
4.0 DISCUSSION 13
5.0 LITERATURE CITED 19
6.0 APPENDIX 27
6.1. Aquatic Macrophyte Community Index (AMCI) for Wisconsin Lakes 27
6.2 Iberian Multimetric Plant Index for Iberian Rivers 28
6.3 Index of Plant Community Integrity (IPCI) for Prairie Pothole Region
Wetlands 29
6.4 Index of Vegetation Integrity for Massachusetts Coastal and Freshwater
Wetlands 30
6.5 Index of Wetland Condition—Wetland Vegetation Quality Assessment
Subindex for the State of Victoria, Australia 31
6.6 Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) for Florida Lakes 33
6.7 Indices of Biotic Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands 34
6.8 Multimetric Index for Depressions and Riverine Wetlands in Montana 35
6.9 Multi-taxa Wetland Vegetation Indices for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands 36
6.10 Plant Index of Biotic integrity (PIBI) for Drowned River Mouth Coastal
Wetlands of Lake Michigan 38
6.11 Plant Index of Biotic integrity (PIBI) for Lacustrine Wetlands 39
6.12 Plant-based Indices of Biotic Integrity (PIBIs) for Wetlands in
Pennsylvania 40
6.13 Plant Index of Biological Integrity (PIBI) for Large Depressional Wetlands
Minnesota 41
6.14 Plant-based Index of Biological Integrity (PIBI) for Depressional
Wetlands in the Temperate Prairie Region of Minnesota 42
6.15 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Index of Biological Integrity for Lake
Ontario Coastal Wetlands 43
6.16 Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VLBI) for Headwater Wetlands in the
Southern Rocky Mountains v. 1.0 44
6.17 Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VLBI) for Small-Order Streams in
Southwest Montana 45
6.18 Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) for Ohio Wetlands 48
6.19 Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI) 49
6.20 Wisconsin Wetland Plant Biotic Index (WWPBI) 51
-------
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wetland vegetation is an obvious choice for developing wetland assessment protocols. Plants
are one of the primary factors, like soil or water, which define wetland structure and function. Plants
have several advantages as indicator species for wetland assessment methods: 1) they are relatively
large, obvious parts of wetland ecosystems; 2) they have a well-studied taxonomy with regional and
state-specific taxonomic treatments for most of the United States; 3) the number of plant taxa growing in
wetlands is large and offers numerous potential attributes for the method development; and 4) vegetation
sampling methods are well developed, "low-tech", and cost effective (Fennessy et al. 2001).
General discussions of potential indicators of wetland condition have considered vegetation
favorably (e.g., Adamus 1996), but until recently there were only a few published assessment protocols
that used plant-based indicators. Since 1999, the development of vegetation-based Indices of Biotic
Integrity (IBIs) has proliferated: Gernes and Helgen (1999, 2002), MPCA (2001, 2005) (depressional
emergent marshes in southern Minnesota); Carlisle et al. (1998, 1999, 2004a,b) (fresh- and salt-water
marshes in Massachusetts); DSE (2002, 2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007) (wetlands in the State of Victoria,
Australia); Lillie (2000), Lillie et al. (2002) (depressional, palustrine wetlands in southeast Wisconsin
Till Plains region); Simon et al. (2001), Rothrock and Simon (2006) (coastal marshes associated with
Lake Michigan); DeKeyser et al. (2003a,b), Hargiss (2005), Hargiss et al. (2008) (prairie pothole
marshes the Northern and Northwestern Glaciated Plains); Miller et al. (2004, 2006) (wetlands in
Pennsylvania); Husat (2003), Mack et al. (2008) (Lake Erie coastal wetlands in Ohio); Mack et al.
(2000), Mack (2001, 2004a,b,c, 2006, 2007, 2009), Mack and Micacchion (2006) (inland wetlands in
Ohio); Lane (2003), Lane et al. (2003), Reiss (2004, 2006), Reiss and Brown (2005) (depressional and
riverine wetlands in Florida); Jones (2004) (depressional and riverine wetlands Montana); Genet and
Bourdaghs (2006) (depressional wetlands in temperate prairies region of Minnesota); Galatowitsch et
al. (1998, 2007) (inland wetlands in Minnesota); Niemi et al. (2006), Bourdaghs et al. (2006), Frieswyk
et al. (2007), Johnston et al. (2007) (emergent Great Lakes coastal wetlands); Rocchio (2006a,b, 2007)
(headwater wetlands in southern Rocky Mountains). Methods using vegetation to assess inland lakes
and riparian zones have also been proposed, e.g., Nichols et al. (2000) (inland lakes in Wisconsin); Fore
(2005), Fore et al. (2007) (inland lakes in Florida); Ferreira et al. (2005) (streams in the southern Iberian
Peninsula); Jones (2005) (small-order stream wetlands in southwest Montana); Rothrock et al. (2008)
(inland lakes in Indiana).
-------
In addition to IBI-type approaches, data derived from quantitative vegetation sampling forms the
backbone of all published guidebooks for the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment method:
Lin (2006) (depressional wetlands in the upper Des Plains river basin); Ainslie et al. (2004) (low
gradient riverine wetlands in western Kentucky); Klimas et al. (2004a) (forested wetlands in the delta
region of Arkansas); Klimas et al. (2004b) (forested wetlands in the West Gulf Coastal Plain region of
Arkansas); Noble et al. (2004) (depressional wetlands in peninsular Florida); Stutheit et al. (2004)
(rainwater depressional wetlands in Nebraska); Uranowski et al. (2003) (low-gradient blackwater
riverine in peninsular Florida); Hauer et al. (2002a) (intermontane pothole wetlands in the Northern
Rocky Mountains); Hauer et al. (2002b) (riverine floodplains in the northern Rocky Mountains);
Rheinhardt et al. (2002) (wet pine flats on mineral soils in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains); Shafer
et al. (2002) (northwest Gulf of Mexico tidal fringe wetlands); Smith and Klimas (2002) (selected region
subclasses of wetlands in the Yazoo Basin lower Mississippi River); Wilder and Roberts (2002) (low-
gradient riverine wetlands in western Tennessee).
All of the protocols discussed above collect comparable vegetation data (e.g., presence-absence,
frequency, cover, density) because they use a variation of basically three sampling protocols (releve,
transect-quadrat, plotless). The critical question then becomes, given this method/data equivalence, is
there convergence among these methods in the type of vegetation attributes that are ultimately selected
as metrics?1 If there is method convergence, then there may be core metrics or categories of metrics that
are applicable to multiple states and regions and to different wetland types. In fact, the working
hypothesis in IBI-development is that while certain wetland types may differ in their floras at the species
or community level, these species or communities behave in a similar manner in response to human
disturbance (Premise 11, Karr and Chu 1999). If there is no or little method convergence, this would
suggest rejecting the working hypothesis, i.e., wetland plant communities do not respond similarly to
human disturbance.
2.0 METHODS
A total of 20 published IBI-type wetland assessment methods using plants were identified and
reviewed.2 Sources included the peer-reviewed literature, government and technical reports published
The terms "attribute" and "metric" as used here follow Karr and Chu (1999). An attribute is a measurable feature of
the taxa group being evaluated; a "metric" is an attribute selected for inclusion in the assessment method.
2 HGM assessment models were not included in this review because the metric selection protocols are very different
from those used in IBIs and numerous non-plant metrics are used.
2
-------
on the internet, and dissertations. The 20 methods represent the wetland IBI protocols known to the
authors and include methods developed over a number of years as well as methods that are in earlier
stages of development. Several methods that assess lakes and riparian zones using vascular plants were
also included. The review of each method documented: (1) the source of the information; (2) the
intended application; (3) the geographic scope (states and ecoregions); (4) the applicable HGM
class(es); (5) the plant community types covered; (6) a brief description of the sampling protocols with
the rationale for the approach taken; and (7) the indicators and metrics adopted. See the Appendix for
the detailed reviews.
The development of IBIs involves the evaluation of a number of potential attributes (many of the
methods investigated hundreds of attributes); however, many of these attributes are basically variations
on a theme, i.e., they are slightly different ways of measuring or calculating the same thing. In addition,
metrics are selected and rejected for a variety of reasons such as redundancy or lack of ability to
discriminate between sites in high and low condition categories. One variation of an attribute may be
selected as a metric because it had slightly better correlation with a disturbance gradient than its sister
attributes, while the developers of another method may have used the same criterion to choose one of
the sister attributes. So, the fact that a particular method does not use a metric does not mean that it
could not have been used, or that it had a poor correlation with disturbance.
To best capture what aspects of vegetation were represented in the methods reviewed, we
grouped the metrics into categories with a general goal of having fewer rather than more categories, i.e.,
lumping versus splitting (see Table 4). For example, standing biomass and maximum vegetation height
were grouped together as "productivity" metrics. Under the total taxa category, metrics included total
native species or genera richness, proportions of native to nonnative species, and abundance of native
taxa. Most metrics could be grouped into ten categories: invasive species, sensitive species, annual-
perennial-biennial, total taxa, tolerant species, Floristic Quality Index metrics, native graminoid,
hydrophyte, aquatic guild, and invasive graminoid metrics. An additional 13 categories were needed to
characterize less used or specific application metrics: forestry, productivity, forb, shrub richness, small
tree density, life form or guild, community structure or zonation, physical parameter, nonvascular taxa,
pioneer species, fern richness, shade species richness, and flood or salinity tolerance metrics.
Comparisons were then made across the categories to evaluate method convergence.
-------
3.0 RESULTS
The methods reviewed are summarized in Table 1. Of the 20 methods examined, several were
composed of a group of closely related indices that were tailored for use in different aquatic
communities (e.g., lakes, coastal marshes, inland forested wetlands) by the substitution of alternate
metrics or metric scoring criteria. This yielded a total of 40 indices. The indices reviewed were
designed to assess lakes (3), riparian areas (2), and wetlands (35) (Table 2). The lake indices were
designed to assess vegetation from fringing "wetlands" around the lake as well as submersed littoral
vegetation in areas deeper than 2m. One of the riparian indices (Jones 2005) assessed linear wetlands
dominated by hydrophytic plants. Of the wetland indices, 7 assessed Great Lakes or Atlantic coastal
marshes; 17, inland emergent wetlands (marshes, wet meadows); 8, inland forested wetlands; and 3,
inland shrub wetlands (Table 2).
The metrics were grouped into 24 categories (Tables 3a,b,c,d). The invasive species metric
category was the only metric category that was used by all of the indices. Over 40% (10 of 24) of the
metric categories were used by more than 50% of the indices evaluated and over a third (9 of 24) of the
categories was used by 20-50% of the indices. Many of the less used metric categories were from
indices that assessed forest or shrub communities and included metrics derived from forest stand data or
metrics related to wetland forest and shrub communities (e.g., shade species richness, fern richness).
The metric categories were ranked from most to least used (Table 4) according to percent of the
methods employing each category (Tables 3a,b,c,d). The ten most commonly used categories in rank
order were: invasive species metrics, sensitive species metrics, annual/biennial/perennial metrics, total
taxa metrics, tolerant species metrics, Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) metrics, native
graminoid metrics, hydrophyte metrics, aquatic guild metrics, and invasive graminoid metrics.
Categories used in assessment protocols for shrub swamps or forested wetlands (e.g., forestry metrics,
small tree metrics, shade species richness metrics) were less common because only a few published
methods were applicable to these types of plant communities.
-------
Table 1. List of the vegetation-based assessment protocols reviewed.
TITLE
(NUMBER OF SUB-INDICES)
Aquatic Macrophyte Index for Wisconsin Lakes (1)
Iberian Multi-metric Plant Index for Iberian Rivers (1)
Index of Plant Community Integrity for Prairie Pothole Region
(PPR) Wetlands (1)
Index of Vegetation Integrity for Massachusetts Coastal (-C) and
Freshwater (-FR) Wetlands (2)
Index of Wetland Condition - Vegetation Quality Assessment
(VQA) Sub-Index for Wetlands in the State of Victoria, Australia
(1)
Lake Vegetation Index for Florida Lakes (1)
Indices of Biotic Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands (8)
Multi-metric Index for Depressional (-D) and Riverine (-R)
Wetlands (2)
Multi-taxa Wetland Vegetation Indices for Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands including Maximum Canopy Height Index (A. 11 and
A.12 of GLEI Vegetation Indicators) (1)
Plant Index of Biotic Integrity for Drowned River Mouth (DRM)
Coastal Wetlands in Lake Michigan (1)
Plant Index of Biotic Integrity for Lacustrine (LAC) wetlands (1)
Plant-based Index of Biological Integrity for wetlands in
Pennsylvania (1)
Plant Index of Biological Integrity for Large-Depressional (-LD)
Wetlands in Minnesota (1)
Plant-based Index of Biological Integrity for Depressional
Wetlands in the Temperate Prairie Region (-TP) of Minnesota (1)
Submersed Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Index of Biological Integrity
for Lake Ontario Coastal Wetlands (1)
Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for Headwater Wetlands in the
Southern Rocky Mountains: VIBI-Riparian Shrublands (-RSH),
VIBI-Fen (-FEN), VIBI-Extremely Rich Fen (-ERF), VIBI-Slope Wet
Meadows (-SWM), VIBI-Riverine Wet Meadows (-RWM) (5)
Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for small-order streams in
southwest Montana (1)
Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for Ohio Wetlands: VIBI-
Emergent (-E), VIBI-Emergent Coastal (-ECOASTAL), VIBI-Shrub (-
SH), VIBI-Forest (-F) (4)
Wetland Condition Index for Florida Wetlands: Isolated
Depressional Herbaceous Wetlands (-IDH), Isolated Forested
Wetlands (-IF), Forest Strand (-FS) Wetlands and Forest
Floodplain (-FF) Wetlands (4)
Wisconsin Wetland Plant Biotic Index (1)
Total indices (sub-indices, counting IWC-AU as 1)
APPENDIX
SECTION
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
20(39)
CODE
Index (Sub-indices)
AQMI
IMPI
ICPI-PPR
IVI-MA (-C, -FR)
IWC-VQA
LIVI-FL
IBI-MN
MMI-MT(-D, -R)
GLEI-VEG
PIBI-DRM
PIBI-LAC
PIBI-PA
PIBI-LD
PIBI-TP
SAV-IBI
VIBI-CO(-RSH,-
FEN.-ERF, -SWM,-
RWM)
VIBI-MT
VIBI-OH (-E,-
ECOASTAL, -F, -SH)
WCI-FL(-IDH,-IF,-
FS, -FF)
WWPBI
1
CITATION
Nichols etal. (2000)
Ferreira et al. (2005)
DeKeyseret al. (2003a,b), Hargiss
(2005), Hargiss etal. (2008)
Carlisle et al. (1998, 1999, 2004a,b)
DSE (2004, 2005a,b, 2006, 2007),
Parkes et al. (2003)
Fore (2005), Fore et al. (2007)
Galatowitsch et al. (2007)
Jones (2004)
Niemi et al. (2006)
Simon et al. (2001), Rothrockand
Simon (2006)
Rothrocketal. (2008)
Miller et al. (2004), Miller et al. (2006)
Gernes and Helgen (1999, 2002),
MPCA (2001, 2005)
Genet and Bourdaghs (2006), MPCA
(2001 , 2005)
Grabas (2005), Grabas and Pernanen
(2004), Grabas et al. (2003)
Rocchio (2006a,b, 2007)
Jones (2005)
Mack et al. (2000, 2008), Mack (2001 ,
2004a,b,c, 2006, 2007, 2009), Mack
and Micacchion (2006)
Lane (2003), Lane et al. (2003), Reiss
(2004, 2006), Reiss and Brown (2005)
Lillie (2000), Lillie et al. (2002)
-------
Table 2. Vegetation-based assessment protocols organized by types of aquatic communities. Codes are
listed in Table 1. # = Number of sub-indices.
Aquatic
Community
Lakes
Rivers
Coastal marshes
Inland emergent
wetlands
Inland forested
wetlands
Inland shrub
wetlands
TOTAL
#
3
2
7
17
8
3
39
Appendix Section(s)
6.1,6.6,6.11
6.2,6.17
6.4,6.5,6.9,6.10,6.15,
6.18
6.3,6.4,6.5,6.7,6.8,
6.12,6.13,6.14,6.16,
6.18,6.19,6.20
6.5,6.7,6.12,6.18,
6.19
6.5,6.6,6.18
Code
AQMI, LIVI-FL, PIBI-LAC
IMPI, VIBI-MT
IVI-MA-C, IVI-MA-FR, IWC-VQA, GLEI-VEG,
PIBI-DRM, SAV-IBI, VIBI-OH-ECOASTAL
IPCI-PPR, IVI-MA, IWC-VQA, IBI-MN, MMI-MT-D,
MMI-MT-R, PIBI-PA, PIBI-LD, PIBI-TP, VIBI-CO-
RSH,VIBI-CO-FEN, VIBI-CO-ERF, VIBI-CO-
SWM, VIBI-CO-RWM, VIBI-OH-E, WCI-FL-IDH,
WWPBI
IWC-VQA, IBI-MN, PIBI-PA, VIBI-OH-F, WCI-FL-
IF, WCI-FL-FS, WCI-FL-FF
IWC-VQA, IBI-MN, VIBI-OH-SH
-------
Table 3a. Metric categories used in the vegetation-based assessment protocols for INLAND EMERGENT WETLANDS.
IPCI-PPR = Index of Plant Community Integrity for Prairie Pothole Region, IVI-MA-FR = Index of Vegetation integrity for
Massachusetts Freshwater Wetlands; IWC-VQA = Index of Wetland Condition Vegetation Quality Index for the State of
Victoria, Australia, IBI-MN = Indices of Biotic Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands, MMI-MT = Multimetric Index for
Depressions and Riverine Wetlands in Montana; PIBI-LD = Plant based Index of Biological Integrity for Large-Depressional
Wetlands in Minnesota, Plant-based Index of Biotic Integrity for Temperate Prairie Wetlands in Minnesota, VTBI-CO-F =
Vegetation IBI for Headwater Fens in Colorado, VTBI-CO-EF = Vegetation IBI for Headwater Extremely Rich Fens in
Colorado, VTBI-CO-RWM = Vegetation IBI for Riverine Wet Meadows in Colorado, VTBI-OH-E = Vegetation IBI for
Emergent Wetlands in Ohio, WCI-FL = Wetland Condition Index for Florida Wetlands, WWPBI = Wisconsin Wetland Plant
Biotic Index.
Appendix Section
Code
TOTAL TAXA METRICS - Native,
generic richness, proportions, cover
LIFE FORM GROUPS OR GUILDS
- Critical life form groups or guilds
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OR
ZONATION - Structure, zonation
INVASIVE SPECIES METRICS -
Exotic, invasive, richness,
abundance, frequency
NATIVE GRAMINOID METRICS -
Graminoid richness or abundance
FORB METRICS - Dicotyledon,
forb, Asteraceae species richness
AQUATIC GUILD METRICS -
Aquatic guild richness or
abundance or depth
SHADE SPECIES RICHNESS
SHRUB SPECIES RICHNESS
FERN RICHNESS - Fern richness
ANNUAL/PERENNIAL/BIENNIAL
METRICS- Annual, perennial
biennial richness, ratios
HYDROPHYTE METRICS -
Hydrophyte richness (FACW, OBL
spp.) or abundance
FLOOD OR SALINITY
TOLERANCE METRICS - Flood
(freshwater sites) or Salinity (salt
marsh sites) tolerance
NONVASCULAR TAXA METRICS -
Abundance or richness
FQAI METRICS - FQAI related
metrics
6.3
ICPI-
PPR
X
X
X
X
X
6.4
IVI-
MA-
FR
X
X
X
X
6.5
IWC-
VQA
X
X
X
6.7
IBI-
MN
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.8
MMI-
MT
X
X
X
6.13
PIBI-
LD
X
X
X
X
X
6.14
PIBI-
TP
X
X
X
X
X
6.16
VIBI-CO
(-F, -EF,
-RWM)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.18
VIBI-
OH-E
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.19
WCI-
FL
X
X
X
X
6.20
WW-
PBI
X
X
X
-------
Appendix Section
Code
PIONEER SPECIES METRICS -
Abundance or richness of pioneer
spp.
TOLERANT SPECIES METRICS -
Abundance or richness of tolerant
species
SENSITIVE SPECIES METRICS -
Abundance, richness of sensitive
species
INVASIVE GRAMINOID METRICS
- Cover of invasive graminoid or
persistent litter species like Typha,
Phalaris, Phragmites
PRODUCTIVITY METRICS -
Standing biomass, maximum
vegetation height
FORESTRY METRICS -
Importance values, richness,
abundance
PHYSICAL PARAMETER
METRICS
SMALL TREE DENSITY - Density
of willows or small diameter trees
6.3
ICPI-
PPR
X
6.4
IVI-
MA-
FR
X
X
X
X
6.5
IWC-
VQA
6.7
IBI-
MN
X
X
6.8
MMI-
MT
X
X
6.13
PIBI-
LD
X
X
X
6.14
PIBI-
TP
X
X
X
6.16
VIBI-CO
(-F, -EF,
-RWM)
X
X
X
X
6.18
VIBI-
OH-E
X
X
X
X
6.19
WCI-
FL
X
X
6.20
WW-
PBI
X
X
-------
Table 3b. Metric categories used in the vegetation-based assessment protocols for SHRUB OR FOREST WETLANDS.
IWC-VQA = Index of Vegetation Condition for Wetlands in the State of Victoria, Australia, IBI-MN = Indices of Biotic
Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands, PIBI-PA = Plant-based Index of Biotic Integrity for Wetlands in Pennsylvania, VTBI-CO-
RSH = Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for Southern Rocky Mountain Riparian Shrublands, VG3I-OH-SH = Vegetation
Index of Biotic Integrity for Shrub Wetlands in Ohio, VG3I-OH-F = Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for Forested
Wetlands in Ohio, WCI-FL-IF = Wetland Condition Index for Isolated Forest in Florida, WCI-FL-FF = Wetland Condition
Index for Forest Floodplain Wetlands in Florida.
Appendix Section
Code
TOTAL TAXA METRICS - Native, generic richness, proportions
LIFE FORM GROUPS OR GUILDS - Critical life form groups or guilds
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OR ZONATION - Metrics related to
percentage or presence of plant community structure or zonation
INVASIVE SPECIES METRICS - Exotic, invasive, weed species
richness, abundance, frequency
NATIVE GRAMINOID METRICS - Graminoid richness, abundance
FORB METRICS - Dicotyledon, forb, Asteraceae species richness
AQUATIC GUILD METRICS - Aquatic guild richness or abundance
SHADE SPECIES RICHNESS
SHRUB SPECIES RICHNESS
FERN RICHNESS - Fern and fern ally richness
ANNUAL/PERENNIAL/BIENNIAL METRICS - Metrics related to
annual, perennial biennial richness or A/P ratios
HYDROPHYTE METRICS - Hydrophyte richness, abundance
FLOOD OR SALINITY TOLERANCE METRICS - Flood (freshwater
sites or Salinity (salt marsh sites) tolerance
NONVASCULAR TAXA METRICS - Abundance or richness
FQAI METRICS - FQAI related metrics
PIONEER SPECIES METRICS - Abundance or richness of "pioneer"
or opportunistic species
TOLERANT SPECIES METRICS - Abundance or richness
SENSITIVE SPECIES METRICS -Abundance, richness, frequency
INVASIVE GRAMINOID METRICS - Invasive graminoids or persistent
litter species like Typha, Phalaris, Phragmites
DIVERSITY METRICS - Shannon-Weiner, Simpson Indices
PRODUCTIVITY METRICS - Standing biomass, maximum vegetation
height
FORESTRY METRICS - Importance values, richness, abundance
PHYSICAL PARAMETER METRICS
SMALL TREE DENSITY - Stem density of willows or small diameter
trees
6.5
IWC-
VQA
X
X
X
6.7
IBI-
MN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.12
PIBI-
PA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.16
VIBI-CO-
RSH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.18
VIBI-OH
(-SH, -F)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.19
WCI-FL
(-IF, -FF)
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 3c. Metric categories used in the vegetation-based assessment protocols for LAKES AND RIVERS. AQMI = Aquatic
Macrophyte Index for Wisconsin Lakes, IMPI = Iberian Multi-metric Plant Index for Iberian Rivers, LIVI-FL =Lake Index of
Vegetation Integrity in Florida, IBI-MN = Indices of Biotic Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands, VTBI-OH-E = Vegetation
Index of Biotic Integrity for Emergent Wetlands in Ohio, VTBI-MT = Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity for small order
streams in southwest Montana.
Appendix Section
Code
TOTAL TAXA METRICS - Native, generic richness or proportions
LIFE FORM GROUPS OR GUILDS - Critical life form groups or guilds
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OR ZONATION - Metrics related to plant
community structure or zonation
INVASIVE SPECIES METRICS - Exotic, invasive, weed species richness,
abundance, frequency
NATIVE GRAMINOID METRICS - Graminoid richness or abundance
FORB METRICS - Dicotyledon, forb, Asteraceae species richness
AQUATIC GUILD METRICS - Aquatic guild richness or abundance or depth
SHADE SPECIES RICHNESS
SHRUB SPECIES RICHNESS
FERN RICHNESS - Fern and fern ally richness
ANNUAL/PERENNIAL/BIENNIAL METRICS - Annual, perennial biennial
richness or A/P ratios
HYDROPHYTE METRICS - Hydrophyte richness or abundance
FLOOD OR SALINITY TOLERANCE METRICS - Flood (freshwater sites or
Salinity (salt marsh sites) tolerance
NONVASCULAR TAXA METRICS - Abundance, richness of nonvascular
taxa
FQAI METRICS - FQAI related metrics
PIONEER SPECIES METRICS - Abundance or richness of "pioneer" or
opportunistic species
TOLERANT SPECIES METRICS - Abundance or richness of tolerant species
SENSITIVE SPECIES METRICS -Abundance, richness, frequency of
sensitive species
INVASIVE GRAMINOID METRICS - Cover of invasive graminoids or
persistent litter species like Typha, Phalaris, Phragmites
DIVERSITY METRICS - Shannon-Weiner, Simpson Indices
PRODUCTIVITY METRICS - Standing biomass, maximum vegetation height
FORESTRY METRICS - Importance values, richness, abundance of woody
spp
PHYSICAL PARAMETER METRICS
SMALL TREE DENSITY- Stem density of willows or small diameter trees
6.1
AQMI
X
X
X
X
6.2
IMPI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.6
LIVI-FL
X
X
X
X
6.7
IBI-
MN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.18
VIBI-
OH-E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.17
VIBI-
MT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
-------
Table 3d. Metric categories used in the vegetation-based assessment protocols for COASTAL WETLANDS. IVI-MA-C =
Index of Vegetation Integrity for Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands, GLEI-VEG = Multi-taxa Wetland Vegetation indices for
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands, PIBI-DRM = Plant Index of Biotic Integrity for Drowned River Mouth Coastal Wetlands in
Lake Michigan, PIBI-LAC = Plant Index of Biotic Integrity for Lacustrine Wetlands, SAV-IBI = Submersed Aquatic
Vegetation Index of Biological Integrity for Lake Ontario Coastal Wetlands, VIBI-ECOASTAL = Vegetation Index of Biotic
Integrity for Ohio Coastal Wetlands.
Appendix Section
Code
TOTAL TAXA METRICS - Native, generic richness, proportions
LIFE FORM GROUPS OR GUILDS - Critical life form groups guilds
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OR ZONATION - Metrics related to percentage or
presence of plant community structure or zonation
INVASIVE SPECIES METRICS - Exotic, invasive, weed species richness,
abundance, frequency
NATIVE GRAMINOID METRICS - Graminoid richness, abundance
FORB METRICS - Dicotyledon, forb, Asteraceae spp richness
AQUATIC GUILD METRICS - Aquatic guild richness, abundance
SHADE SPECIES RICHNESS
SHRUB SPECIES RICHNESS
FERN RICHNESS - Fern and fern ally richness
ANNUAL/PERENNIAL/BIENNIAL METRICS - Metrics related to annual, perennial
biennial richness or A/P ratios
HYDROPHYTE METRICS - Hydrophyte richness, abundance
FLOOD OR SALINITY TOLERANCE METRICS - Flood (freshwater sites) or Salinity
(salt marsh sites) tolerance
NONVASCULAR TAXA METRICS - Abundance or richness
FQAI METRICS - FQAI related metrics
PIONEER SPECIES METRICS -Abundance or richness of "pioneer" or opportunistic
species
TOLERANT SPECIES METRICS - Abundance or richness of tolerant species
SENSITIVE SPECIES METRICS -Abundance, richness, frequency of sensitive
species
INVASIVE GRAMINOID METRICS - Cover of invasive graminoids or persistent litter
species like Typha, Phalaris, Phragmites
DIVERSITY METRICS - Shannon-Weiner, Simpson Indices
PRODUCTIVITY METRICS - Standing biomass, maximum vegetation height
FORESTRY METRICS - Importance values, richness, abundance
PHYSICAL PARAMETER METRICS
SMALL TREE DENSITY- Stem density of willows or small diameter trees
6.4
IVI-MA-
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.9
GLEI
-VEG
X
X
X
X
X
6.10
PIBI-
DRM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.11
PIBI-
LAC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6.15
SAV-
IBI
X
X
X
6.18
VIBI-OH-
ECOASTAL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
-------
Table 4. Metric categories ranked from most to least used in the twenty vegetation-based assessment indices reviewed. Note that
low rank does not mean the metric is not "good," only that it was used in fewer of the indices reviewed. For example, there are
fewer "forest" indices than "emergent" indices so there were fewer forestry-based metrics overall.
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
METRIC CATEGORY (# INDICES/TOTAL)
INVASIVE SPECIES METRICS (20/20)
SENSITIVE SPECIES METRICS (18/20)
ANNUAL/PERENNIAL/BIENNIAL METRICS (18/20)
TOTAL TAXA METRICS (17/20)
TOLERANT SPECIES METRICS (16/20)
FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT INDEX (FQAI) METRICS (16/20)
NATIVE GRAMINOID METRICS (13/20)
HYDROPHYTE METRICS (12/20)
AQUATIC GUILD METRICS (11/20)
INVASIVE GRAMINOID METRICS (11/20)
FORESTRY METRICS (8/20)
PRODUCTIVITY METRICS (7/20)
FORB METRICS (6/20)
SHRUB SPECIES RICHNESS METRICS (6/20)
DIVERSITY METRICS (5/20)
SMALL TREE DENSITY METRICS (4/20)
LIFE FORM GROUPS OR GUILD METRICS (4/20)
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OR ZONATION METRICS (4/20)
PHYSICAL PARAMETER METRICS (4/20)
NONVASCULARTAXA METRICS (3/20)
PIONEER SPECIES METRICS (3/20)
FERN RICHNESS METRICS (2/20)
SHADE SPECIES RICHNESS METRICS (1/20)
FLOOD OR SALINITY TOLERANCE METRICS (1/20)
COMMENTS
includes metrics related to total richness by
vegetation zone, riparian zone
includes nutrient affinity and turbidity tolerant
metrics
includes Floristic Quality Assessment Index
score, cover weighted FQAI, and mean
Coefficient of Conservatism metrics
includes "wetness metric" (%similarity of wet
value weighted for abundance)
only used for methods that assess lakes and
deeper water wetland communities
note that four out of eight methods that
assessed forests proposed metrics related to
standard forestry statistics
only used in forest or shrub communities
Loss of zonation, %vegetated littoral zone,
%healthy structure
e.g., cover of bare ground or litter, cover-
weighted bank stability index
shade metric only used for VIBI-Forest
%similarity of flood or salinity tolerance value
weighted for abundance
12
-------
4.0 DISCUSSION
There was substantial convergence across methods on several metric categories despite the
considerable individuality in the methods reviewed (Table 4), the variability in the approach to index
development, and the variety of the wetlands types being assessed. The common categories of metrics
are very similar to those selected in many fish and invertebrate IBIs, e.g., taxa richness, sensitivity,
tolerance, invasiveness, and diversity. This is an encouraging result and bodes well for the future
development of new methods and the continued refinement and validation of existing methods. Of note
is the consistent use of metrics based on the Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) approach
(Wilhelm and Ladd 1988, Wilhelm and Masters 1995, Andreas and Lichvar 1995, Andreas et al. 2004).3
Of the 20 indices evaluated here, 12 had FQAI's available that could be used in the development of a
plant index. All 12 of these indices included one or more metrics derived from the FQAI including
FQAI score, cover weighted FQAI scores, mean Coefficient of Conservatism (C of C), and % sensitive
or % tolerant metrics that used cover or richness of plants with particular C of C's (Table 3a,b,c,d)
(Appendix 6.3, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.12, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19). Overall, the results lend
support to our hypothesis that while certain wetland types may differ in their floras at the species or
community level, wetland plants as characterized in IBI metrics behave in a similar manner in response
to human disturbance as predicted by Karr and Chu (1999) in Premise 11.
Most of the methods reviewed developed or used a previously established disturbance gradient
for evaluating potential metrics and the final index. Some of the individuality in metric selection can be
attributed to how the particular wetland types and data collected from them related to the various
disturbance measures. In more recently developed indices (e.g., Reiss 2004, 2006; Jones 2005; Genet
and Bourdaghs 2006; Niemi et al. 2006, Rocchio 2007) there is a strong reliance on results from
regression analysis in determining the suitability or unsuitability of particular attributes as metrics. This
reliance on parametric (or nonparametric) statistics, or other complicated multivariate techniques should
be done with some caution because, as Karr and Chu (1999) have stated, a good metric (e.g., metrics
with threshold relationships to disturbance) may be rejected by an over-reliance on p-values to
determine acceptance or rejection. There also appears to be a trend to developing highly tailored
methods with unique metrics rather than selecting metrics with the broadest applicability across the most
wetland types in a state or region. On the positive side is the number of investigators developing
methods with state- or region-wide applicability that are based on multiple data sets rather than single
wetland type/one-year-of-sampling approaches (e.g., Nichols et al. 2000; Lane 2003; Lane et al. 2003;
Miller et al. 2004; Reiss 2004; Fore 2005; Reiss and Brown 2005; Genet and Bourdaghs 2006; Neimi et
al. 2006; Mack 2007; Rocchio 2007; Hargiss et al., 2008).
3 In a FQAI, each species in the flora is assigned a Coefficient of Conservatism (C of C) from 0 to 10 reflecting its
habitat specificity. The FQAI is a variation of weighted average ordination (Andreas et al., 2004) and is best understood as a
weighted species richness index with the weighting factor being the C of C. If the C of C's are combined with species
abundance data, the FQAI becomes a weighted averaging technique (Gauch 1982).
13
-------
A notably different approach was taken by the State of Victoria, Australia, in the development of
the Index of Wetland Condition Vegetation Quality Assessment (IWC-VQA). The IWC-VQA was
developed as a rapid assessment method, although it appears to be less rapid than some "rapid wetland
assessment methods" in use in the United States (Fennessy et al. 2007). The IWC-VQA front-loaded
community description and classification by developing 135 Ecological Vegetation Community (EVC)
descriptions with lists of indicator species, "critical life form" groups with the number of species
expected per group, species indicative of altered ecosystem processes, and criteria defining vegetation
structural health (e.g., see Figure 1, EVC 945 and Wetland Vegetation Quality Assessment Score
Sheets). This approach is specifically mentioned because it provides a way to marry quantitative
community description (data from over 800 vegetation plots was used to develop the EVCs) with a rapid
assessment-style approach that may be worth exploring elsewhere.
Overall, wetland IBI development and the use of plants as indicator species is maturing and
expanding. The methods reviewed demonstrate that plants can be used to assess a range of wetlands
including those associated with other aquatic resources such as lakes and rivers. In addition, a core set
of indicators derived from quantitative vegetation data appear to be useful across diverse states and
regions. As planning proceeds towards the implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's program for periodic assessments of the ecological condition of the Nation's wetlands, efforts
should be made to evaluate or collect data from disturbance gradients already established for the
development of vegetation-based and other IBIs. This would allow a national derivation and evaluation
of the core metrics identified in our analysis. It also would provide the basis for the future development
of assessment methods with regional or national applicability.
14
-------
Figure 1. Ecological Vegetation Community (EVC 945) and Wetland Vegetation Quality Assessment Score
Sheets from the Index of Wetland Condition Vegetation Quality Assessment in the State of Victoria, Australia
(DSE 2005b, 2006).
EVC 945: Floodway Pond Herbland/Riverine Swamp Forest Complex
1. CRITICAL LIFEFORM GROUPINGS
Conditions when specific critical lifeform groupings should not be assessed
None recognised.
General comments on assessing critical lifeform groupings
None.
Critical lifeform groupings and threshold values for determining if lifeform is substantially
modified
Critical lifeform No. 5pp. % Cover Comments
Medium to large aquatic herbs 3
Medium monocots 2 at least semi-aquatic
Small to medium herbs 3 mainly small, often prostrate
Trees 5 exclude young regeneration
2. WEEDS
High threat weed species
Scientific name Common name
Alisma lanceolata Water Plantain
Cuscuta campestris field Dodder
Paspalvm distichum Water Couch
Saffittariaspp, Sagittaria
Xanthium spinosum Bathurst Burr
Conditions where weeds are considered to have a negligible impact
Opportunistic species present during dry periods.
3. INDICATORS OF ALTERED PROCESSES
Indicator of altered process
Scale of severity
River Red-gum Eucalyptus camaldulGnsis
regeneration / Giant Rush Juncus ingens.
invasion.
patchy/dense regeneration,
5-10% cover.
10-20% cover.
dense regeneration
>20% cover.
Minor
Moderate
Severe
Circumstances where some critical lifeform groupings may not be evident
None recognised.
4. VEGETATION STRUCTURE AND HEALTH
Structural dominant
River Red-gum Eucalyptus camafduiensis
Benchmark cover
10%.
l'i«,lKhrri by the- Victorian ttwemmr-nt Ufp* tnir-nr of Sn&Tatubl% aid Hi»y fji irixtil (Vtalx* TQDi
$ the State of Vfctwid Dyp^tntwil. of SusldfridbllHj did Environment 2005
Tlife piiilkdlxifi hjcupri^hL RepforJutlkxi cvid (lit* rn-*B«j rtVdiLik? of 1hisnid(«wi fw \xsyx\ts\t irvhotrsy or r»wi-r_omHi(?itMl p*iipw«!s ft^
f (or l>y tltp (^* df.ilHiq provisions or rtif
, CHI toddtlkm thai:
no ofTiia! tmtHKUuii n claimed;
tlr nwtertcil b m«lc d^ildtk- wirSiotit dstiyc w dttcral; dfid
the matef lal is not subject to iriatairdtCj misleading or derogatory treatment
pwmfeKinn Toioptodlic.oor fomnitnir^lp tills mvtfi'K til *i aiy w/iy not poimlHctl hy tliK Ik
tpd to HIP Nomkuted OHir«, Copyright, R Hkiiokcm Sir ml, F.-Kr MP|HIHTM>, VSct«Li, 3007.
For ii
fi 186
f bilormritton rontrt- iTuslninw Sff vk P Cri i h <••• ,
Mils |*j|)fci,-itio!i rurtf |H> of asststiincp tn jffn.i Un \\w SLUV ol Vn. to i, i . » i« 1 L1?i pmployp(»> do ru>l gtiivrntpc1 th.itlhp pnhltr/irton ta wtthonh fliwof ruijr kndor ts V>M>HK i^pproprln
tot rout [viiiti.nl.-* (.^ ff | K.wrt, ,m I (J»WE.'ft»r«*cli!ftldlni!(dl ItdUlty fw atif at«, lw» ex otliw tomet)ue«K.« wliklt nwf & be from jctu iH^tiy ori aij bifofniu*imii
www.dse .vie .gov.au
15
-------
Description:
Wetland dominated by Muehlenbeckia fhrulenta (variously with Eragrostis infecunda), with a component or patches of
salt-tolerant herbs (at least at low to moderate levels of salinity) and usually also with some species common to
freshwater habitats. Can be very species-poor apart from introduced annuals. Sites with a higher diversity of salt-
tolerant native species, at least around the drier outer verges, are generally presumed to have been somewhat saline
prior to European settlement. However, species-poor character does not necessarily imply that the site is degraded or
highly modified. Rare, lower rainfall plains in north and west.
Indicator species (some or all of these species should be present)
Scientific name
Agrostiss.\. spp,
Chenopodium glaucum
Distichlis distichophylla
Eragrostis infecunda
Gahnia fi/um
Isolepis cernua
Lobelia irrigua
Mimulus repens
Muehlenbeckia florulenta
Myriophyl/um verrucosum
Samolus repens
Sell/era radicans
Triglochin striata
Wilsonia rotund!folia
Common name
Bent/Blown Grass
Glaucous Goosefoot
Australian Salt-grass
Southern Cane-grass
Chaffy Saw-sedge
Nodding Club-sedge
Salt Pratia
Creeping Monkey-flower
Tangled Lignum
Red Water-milfoil
Creeping Brookweed
Shiny Swamp-mat
Streaked Arrowgrass
Round-leafWilsonia
Conditions when the EVC should not be assessed
None recognised, subject to discretion based on recognition that this EVC may be underscored during prolonged
droughts.
1. CRITICAL LIFEFORM GROUPINGS
Conditions when specific critical lifeform groupings should not be assessed
None recognised, but note conditions when the EVC should not be assessed.
General comments on assessing critical lifeform groupings
None.
Critical lifeform groupings and threshold values for determining if lifeform is substantially
modified
Critical lifeform
Medium to small herbs
Medium to tall graminoids
Small to prostrate herbs
No. spp. °/o Cover
Comments
substantially modified if absent
mainly medium, mainly grasses and sedges,
rhizomataus/staloniferous species.
Victors
The Place To Be
Ecological Vegetation Class benchmark
16
-------
Wetland Vegetation Quality Field Assessment Sheet
Version 1.1 - March 2006
Biota — Wetland vegetation quality assessment
Individual EVC assessment
1. Record EVC name [A] and number [B].
2. Refer to the EVC benchmark for wetland
assessment".
3. Check the benchmark description Tor any
conditions when the EVC should not be
assessed.
4. Determine the critical lifeform groupings score
and enter at [C].
The benchmark specifies minimum species
diversity and/or cover levels for each lifeform
grouping. Scoring is based on the presence of
lifeform groupings and whether or not they are
substantially modified.
*A critical lifeform grouping is considered to be
substantially modified if it fails to meet the
benchmark thresholds for species numbers or
cover.
5. Note any critical lifeform groupings that were
not assessed.
The EVC benchmark may specify conditions
when specific life form groupings should not be
assessed.
6. Determine weeds score and enter at [D].
The scoring is based on assessing the
percentage cover of weeds and, of those, the
percentage that are classed as high threat
(specified on the EVC benchmark or identified
by the assessor). The benchmark also specifies
instances where it is appropriate to overtook
low-threat weeds.
7. Determine indicators of altered processes score
and enter at [E].
Refer to the critical lifeform groupings listed in
benchmark Section 1 to determine whether or
not 50% of these are present. If at least 50%
are present and one or more altered process is
specified on the benchmark, score the severity
of the process that is most severe. If no process
is evident or none is specified in the benchmark,
score accordingly.
8. Determine vegetation structure and health score
and enter at [F].
The percentage of the specified cover present
for the structural dominant(s) in the EVC is
determined first. The assessor then determines
the health of the structural dominants).
9. Add the scores for each benchmark attribute to
calculate the wetland vegetation quality score
(out of 100).
EVC name [A]
EVC No. [B]
Critical lifeform groupings (benchmark Section 1.)
Critical lifeform groupings
All critical lifeform groupings effectively absent
>0 - <50% of critical lifeform groupings present
> 50% - <90% of critical lifeform groupings present, of those present:
- at least 50% substantially modified*
- less than 50% substantially modified*
> 90% of critical lifeform groupings present, of those present:
- at least 50% substantially modified*
- less than 50% substantially modified*
Critical lifcfomi groupings score [C]
10
15
20
25
Note any critical lifeform
groupings not assessed?
Weeds (benchmark* Section 2.)
Total cover of °/b of weed cover made up of high threat weeds
weeds in EVC nil <5O >50<%
>50°/o 730
25-50% 12 10 7
5-25% 18 12 12
<5% 25 22 IS
Weeds score [D]
Indicators of altered processes (benchmark' Section 3.)
Category Score
EVC completely displaced and site substantially modified (eg. cropped
/ fully-drained) 0
< 50% of critical lifeform groupings still represented 5
•• 50% critical lifeform groupings present (or exempted as per benchmark)
- altered process identified as 'severe' 10
- altered process identified as 'moderate' IS
- altered process identified as 'minor' 20
- no evidence of the altered process or none recognised in the benchmark 25
Indicators of altered processes score [E]
Vegetation structure and health (benchmark1 Section 4.)
% of benchmark 0/" of structural dominant(s) which are healthy
cover >7Q 30-70 <30
<10 000
10-50 IS 10 5
>50 25 20 15
Vegetation structure and health score [F]
Wetland vegetation quality score [C + D + E + F]
www.dse.vic.gov.au
2
17
-------
18
-------
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Andreas, B.K. and R.W. Lichvar. 1995. Floristic index for establishing assessment standards: a case
study for northern Ohio. Technical Report WRP-DE-8, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
Andreas, B.K., JJ. Mack, and J.S. McCormac. 2004. Floristic quality assessment index for vascular
plants and mosses for the state of Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface
Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, OH.
Adamus, P.R. 1996. Bioindicators for assessing ecological integrity of prairie wetlands. EPA/600/R-
96/082. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Ainslie, W.B., R.D. Smith, B.A. Pruitt, T.H. Roberts, E J. Sparks, L. West, G.L. Godshalk and M.V.
Miller. 2004. Regional guidebook for assessing the functions of low gradient, riverine wetlands in
we stern Kentucky. WRP-DE-17. Wetlands Research Program, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MI.
Albert, D. and L. Mine. 2004. Plant as regional indicators of Great Lakes coastal wetland health.
Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 7:233-247.
Bourdaghs, M., C.A. Johnston, and R.R. Regal. 2006. Properties and performance of the Floristic
Quality Index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718-735.
Carlisle, B.K., J.P. Smith, A.L. Hicks, E.G. Largay, and S R. Garcia. 1998. Wetland ecological
integrity: an assessment approach. The Coastal Wetlands Ecosystem Protection Project, NOAA No.
NA57OC0470. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA.
Carlisle, B.K., A.L. Hicks, J.P. Smith, S.R. Garcia, and E.G. Largay. 1999. Plants and aquatic
invertebrates as indicators of wetland biological integrity in Waquoit Bay Watershed, Cape Cod.
Environment Cape Cod 2:30-60.
Carlisle, B.K., J.D. Baker, A L. Hicks, J P. Smith, and A.R. Wilbur. 2004a. Cape Cod salt marsh
assessment project; Final Grant Project Volume 1: relationship of salt marsh indices ofbiotic integrity
to surrounding land use, 1999. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA.
Carlisle, B.K., J.D. Baker, A.L. Hicks, J.P. Smith, and A.R. Wilbur. 2004b. Cape Cod salt marsh
assessment project; Final Grant Project Volume 2: response of selected salt marsh indicators to tide
restriction 2000-2003. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, Boston, MA.
Danz, N.P., R.R. Regal, G.J. Niemi, V.J. Brady, T. Hollenhorst, L.B. Johnson, G.E. Host, J.M.
Hanowski, C.A. Johnston, T. Brown, J. Kingston, and J.R. Kelly. 2005. Environmentally stratified
sampling design for the development of Great Lakes environmental indicators. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment. 102:41-65.
19
-------
Danz, N.P, GJ. Niemi, R.R. Regal, T. Hollenhorst, L.B. Johnson, J.M. Hanowski, R. Axler, J.J.H.
Ciborowski, T. Hrabit, VJ. Brady, J.C. Brazner, R.W. Howe, C.A. Johnston, and G.E. Host. 2007.
Integrated gradients of anthropogenic stress in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin. Environmental Management
39:631-647.
Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64.
1959.
DeKeyser, E.S., D.R. Kirby, and M.J. Ell. 2003a. An index of plant community integrity: development
of the methodology for assessing prairie wetland plant communities. Ecological Indicators 3: 119-133.
DeKeyser, E.S., D.R. Kirby, M.J. Ell, and L.A. Foss. 2003b. The index of plant community integrity:
an assessment method for wetland plant communities of the Prairie Pothole region. Animal and Range
Sciences Miscellaneous Report, May 2003. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
DSE. 2002. A FrameWork for Action. The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE), Victoria's Native Vegetation Management, East Melbourne, Australia.
DSE. 2004. Vegetation quality assessment manual: guidelines for applying the habitat hectares
scoring method, v. 1.3. The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE),
East Melbourne, Australia.
DSE. 2005a. Index of wetland condition: conceptual FrameWork and selection of measures. The State
of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), East Melbourne, Australia.
DSE. 2005b. Index of wetland condition: assessment of wetland vegetation. The State of Victoria
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), East Melbourne, Australia.
DSE. 2006. Index of wetland condition: assessment of wetland vegetation. Update - March 2006. The
State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), East Melbourne, Australia.
DSE. 2007. Index of Wetland Condition: a review of wetland assessment methods. The State of
Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), East Melbourne, Australia.
Fennessy, S., M. Gernes, J. Mack, and D.H. Wardrop. 2001. Methods for evaluating wetland condition:
using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. EPA-822-R-02-020. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Fennessy, M.S., A.D. Jacobs, and M.E. Kentula. 2007. An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing
the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:504-521.
Ferreira, M.T., P.M. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, F.C. Aguiar, and A. Albuquerque. 2005. Assessing biotic
integrity in Iberian rivers: development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators 5:137-149.
Fore, L. S. 2005. Assessing the biological condition of Florida lakes: development of the Lake
Vegetation Index (LVI). Final Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Tallahassee, FL.
20
-------
Fore, L.S., R. Frydenborg, N. Wellendorf, J. Espy, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Jackson, and J. Patrolis.
2007. Assessing the Biological Condition of Florida Lakes: Development of the Lake Vegetation Index
(LVI). Final Report for Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.
Frieswyk, C.B., C.A. Johnston, and J.B. Zedler. 2007. Identifying and characterizing dominant plants
as an indicator of community condition. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33 (Special Issue 3): 125-
135.
Galatowitsch, S.M., D.C. Whited, and J.R. Tester. 1998. Development of community metrics to
evaluate recovery of Minnesota wetlands. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 6:217-234.
Galatowitsch, S., J. Tester, D. Whited, and S. Moe. 2007. Assessing Wetland Quality with Ecological
Indicators. A Report on the Development of Indices of Biotic Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands.
Downloaded from http: /horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/mnwet/begin.hgm. Accessed on 10 August
2007.
Gauch, H.G., Jr. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY. 298 p.
Genet, J. A. and M. Bourdaghs. 2006. Development and validation of indices of biological integrity for
depressional wetlands in the temperate prairies ecoregion. Biological Monitoring Unit, Environmental
Analysis and Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
Gernes, M.C. and J.C. Helgen. 1999. Indexes ofbiotic integrity (IBI)for wetlands: vegetation and
invertebrate IBI's. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assistance Number
CD995525-01, April 1999. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Outcomes Division,
St. Paul, MN.
Gernes, M.C. and J.C. Helgen. 2002. Indexes of biological integrity (IBI) for large depressional
wetlands in Minnesota. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assistance Number
CD995525-01. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Outcomes Division, St. Paul, MN.
Grabas, G. 2005. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Report: Year 3 Technical Report.
Environment Canada - Ontario Region (Canadian Wildlife Service) and Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority, Durham, Ontario, Canada.
Grabas, G. and S. Pernanen. 2004. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitor ing Report: Year 2
Technical Report. Environment Canada - Ontario Region (Canadian Wildlife Service) and Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority, Durham, Ontario, Canada.
Grabas, G., J. Ingram, and S. Pernanen. 2003. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project:
Methodology Handbook - Second Approximation. Environment Canada - Ontario Region (Canadian
Wildlife Service) and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Durham, Ontario, Canada.
Hargiss, C.L.M. 2005. Evaluation of an index of plant community integrity for assessing wetland plant
communities in the Prairie Pothole Region. M.S. Thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND.
21
-------
Hargiss, C.L.M., E.S. DeKeyser, D.R. Kirby, and MJ. Ell. 2008. Regional assessment of wetland plant
communities using the index of plant community integrity. Ecological Indicators 8:303-307.
Hauer, F.R., BJ. Cook, M.C. Gilbert, EJ. Clairain, Jr., and R.D. Smith. 2002a. A Regional Guidebook
for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Intermontane Pothole
Wetlands in the Northern Rocky Mountains. ERDC/EL TR-02-7. Ecosystem Management and
Restoration Program Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Hauer, F.R., BJ. Cook, M.C. Gilbert, EJ. Clairain, Jr., and R.D. Smith. 2002b. Regional guidebook for
applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of riverine floodplains in the
Northern Rocky Mountains. ERDC/EL TR-02-21. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Program
Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
Husat, N.L. 2003. A Vegetation index of Biotic Integrity for Lake Erie's coastalwetlands. M.S. Thesis,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Johnston, C.A., B. Bedford, M. Bourdaghs, T. Brown, C.B. Frieswyk, M. Tulbure, L. Vaccaro, and J.B.
Zedler. 2007. Plant species indicators of physical environment in Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 33 (Special Issue 3): 106-124.
Johnston, C.A., T. Brown, T. Hollenhorst, P. Wolter, N. Danz, and G. Niemi. 2009. GIS in support of
ecological indicator development, p. 1095-1114. In Manual of Geographic Information System, M.
Madden (ed.). American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethsda, MD.
Jones, W.M. 2004. Using vegetation to assess wetland condition: a multimetric approach for
temporarily and seasonally flooded depressional wetlands and herbaceous-dominated intermittent and
ephemeral riverine wetlands in the northwestern glaciated plains ecoregion, Montana. Report to
Montana Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Natural
Heritage Program, Helena, MT.
Jones, W.M. 2005. A vegetation index ofbiotic integrity for small-order streams in southwest Montana
and afloristic quality assessment for western Montana wetlands. Montana Natural Heritage Program,
Natural Resource Information System, Montana State Library, Helena, MT.
Karr, J.R., and E.W. Chu. 1999. Re storing Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitor ing.
Island Press, Washington, DC. 206 p.
Klimas, C.V., E.O. Murray, J. Pagan, H. Langston and T. Foti. 2004a. Regional guidebook for applying
the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of forested wetlands in the Delta Region
of the Arkansas, Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. ERDC/EL TR-04-16. Ecosystem
Management and Restoration Program Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
22
-------
Klimas, C.V., E.O. Murray, J. Pagan, H. Langston and T. Foti. 2004b. Regional guidebook for
applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of forested wetlands in the West
Gulf Coastal Plain region of Arkansas. ERDC/EL TR-04-16. Ecosystem Management and Restoration
Program Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Lane, C.R. 2003. Biological indicators of wetland condition for isolated depressional herbaceous
wetlands in Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Lane, C.R., M.T. Brown, M. Murray-Hudson, and M.B. Vivas. 2003. The wetland condition index
(WCI): biological indicators of wetland condition for isolated depressional herbaceous wetlands in
Florida. Report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Contract No. WM-
683. H. T. Odum Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Lillie, R. A. 2000. Development of a biological index and classification system for Wisconsin wetlands
using macroinvertebrates and plants. Final report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V,
Wetland Grant No. CD985491-01. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated
Science Services, Monona, WI.
Lillie, R.A., P. Garrison, S.I. Dodson, R.A. Bautz, and G. LaLiberte. 2002. Refinement and expansion
of wetland biological indices for Wisconsin. Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Wetland Grant No. CD975115-01-0. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Ecological Services and Monitoring Section, Monona, WI.
Lin, J.P. 2006. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing
Wetland Functions of Depressional Wetlands in the Upper Des Plains River Basin. ERDC/EL TR-06-4.
Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Mack, JJ. 2001. Vegetation indices ofbiotic integrity (VIBI)for wetlands: Volume 1 Ecoregional,
hydrogeomorphic, and plant community comparison with preliminary wetland aquatic life use
designations. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Grant No. CD985875. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, OH.
Mack, JJ. 2004a. Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 2: an ordination and classification of
wetlands in the Till and Lake Plains and Allegheny Plateau regions. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency Technical Report WET/2004-2. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface
Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, OH.
Mack, JJ. 2004b. Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 4: vegetation index of biotic integrity
(VIBI)for Ohio wetlands. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report WET/2004-4.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group,
Columbus, OH.
Mack, J J. 2004c. Integrated wetland assessment program. Part 9: field manual for the vegetation
index ofbiotic integrity for wetlands v. 1.3. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report
WET/2004-9. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology
Group, Columbus, OH.
23
-------
Mack, JJ. 2006. Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition: an evaluation of the landscape
development index (LDI) with a large reference wetland dataset from Ohio. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 120:221-241.
Mack, JJ. 2007. Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing iterations.
Ecological Indicators 7:864-881.
Mack, J. J. 2009. Development issues in extending plant-based IBIs to forested wetlands in the
midwestern United States. Wetland Ecology and Management 17:117-130.
Mack, JJ. and M. Micacchion. 2006. Addendum to: Integrated Wetland Assessment Program. Part 4:
Vegetation Index ofBiotic Integrity for Ohio wetlands and Part 7: Amphibian Index ofBiotic Integrity
for Ohio wetlands. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Report WET/2006-2. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Wetland Ecology Group, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH.
Mack, J.J., M. Micacchion, L.D. Augusta, and G.R. Sablak. 2000. Vegetation indices ofbiotic integrity
(VIBI)for wetlands and calibration of the Ohio rapid assessment method for wetlands v. 5.0. Final
Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Grant No. CD985276. Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, OH.
Mack, J.J., N. H. Avdis, E.G. Braig IV, and D.L. Johnson. 2008. Application of a vegetation-based
index ofbiotic integrity for Lake Erie coastal marshes in Ohio. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and
Management 11:91-104.
Miller, S J., D.H. Wardrop, W.M. Mahaney, and R.P. Brooks. 2004. Plant-based indices of Biological
Integrity (IBIs) for Wetlands in Pennsylvania Monitoring and assessing Pennsylvania wetlands. Final
report for Cooperative Agreement No. X-827157 submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. The Pennsylvania State University, Cooperative Wetlands
Center, State College, PA.
Miller, S J., D.H. Wardrop, W.M. Mahaney, and R.P. Brooks. 2006. A plant-based index of biological
integrity (IBI) for headwater wetlands in central Pennsylvania. Ecological Indicators 6:290-312.
MFC A. 2001. Aquatic plant community sampling procedure for depressional wetland monitoring sites.
Wetland Vegetation SOP wq-bwm3-01. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), St. Paul, MN.
MFC A. 2005. Reconnaissance procedures for depressional wetland monitoring sites. Wetland
Vegetation SOP wq-bwml-05. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), St. Paul, MN.
Nichols, S., S. Weber, and B. Shaw. 2000. A proposed aquatic plant community index for Wisconsin
Lakes. Environmental Management 26:491-5 02.
24
-------
Niemi, G.J., R. Axler, V. Brady, J. Brazner, T. Brown, J.H. Ciborowski, N. Danz, J.M. Hanowski, T.
Hollenhorst, R. Howe, L.B. Johnson, C.A. Johnston, E. Reavie, M. Simcik, and D. Swachhamer. 2006.
Environmental Indicators of the U.S. Great Lakes coastal program. Report NRRI/TR-2006/11 to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR Program, ver. 1. Agreement R82-8675, Washington, DC.
Prepared by Great Lakes Environmental Indicators Collaboration, Natural Resources Research Institute,
University of Minnesota, Duluth. 121 pp + attachments (CD).
Noble, C.V., R. Evans, M. McGuire, K. Trott, M. Davis, and E.C. Clairan, Jr. 2004. A Regional
Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of
Depressional Wetlands in Peninsular Florida. ERDC/EL TR-04-3. Environmental Laboratory, U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Parkes, D., G. Newell, and D. Cheal. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the "habitat
hectares" approach. Ecological Management and Restoration 4 (Supplement sl):s29-s38.
Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274.
Reiss, K.C. 2004. Developing biological indicators for isolated forested wetlands in Florida. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Reiss, K.C. 2006. Florida wetland condition index for depressional forested wetlands. Ecological
Indicators 6:337'-352.
Reiss, K. C. and M. T. Brown. 2005. The Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): preliminary
development of biological indicators for forested strand andfloodplain wetlands. Report submitted to
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Contract No. WM-683. H.T. Odum Center for
Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Rheinhardt, R.D., M.C. Rheinhardt, and M.M. Brinson. 2002. A Regional Guidebook for Applying the
Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Wet Pine Flats on Mineral Soils in the
Atlantic and Gulf'CoastalPlains. ERDC/EL TR-02-9. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Rocchio, J. 2006a. Vegetation index ofbiotic integrity for southern Rocky Mountain fens, wet
meadows, and riparian shrubland. Phase 1 Final Report. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Warner
College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Rocchio, J. 2006b. Ecological integrity assessments for North American arid freshwater marsh, Rocky
Mountain, montane-alpine wet meadows, Rocky Mountain upper montane-subalpine fens, Rocky
Mountain upper montane sub-alpine riparian shrublands, Rocky Mountain upper montane riparian
woodlands, Rocky Mountain lower montane riparian woodland and shrubland, and Intermontane basin
playas. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
Rocchio, J. 2007. Assessing the ecological condition of headwater wetlands in the southern Rocky
Mountains using a vegetation index ofbiotic integrity, v. 1.0. Colorado Natural Heritage Program,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
25
-------
Rothrock, P.E. and T.P. Simon. 2006. A plant-index of biotic integrity for drowned river mouth coastal
wetlands of Lake Michigan, p. 95-2008. In T. P. Simon and P.M. Steward (eds.). Coastal Wetlands of
the Laurentian Great Lakes: Health, Habitat, and Indicators. Authorhouse Press, Bloomington, IN.
Rothrock, P.E., T.P. Simon, and P.M. Stewart. 2008. Development, calibration, and validation of a
littoral zone plant index of biotic integrity (PIBI) for lacustrine wetlands. Ecological Indicators 8:79-
88.
Shafer, D.J., B. Herczeg, D.W. Moulton, A. Sipocz, K. Jaynes, L.P. Rozas, C.P. Onuf, and W. Miller.
2002. Regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions
of northwest Gulf of Mexico tidal fringe wetlands. ERDC/EL TR-02-5. Ecosystem Management and
Restoration Program Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Schmida, A. 1984. Whittaker's plant diversity sampling method. IsraelJournal of Botany 33:41-46.
Simon, T.P., P.M. Stewart, and P.E. Rothrock. 2001. Development of multimetric indices of biotic
integrity for riverine and palustrine wetland plant communities along southern Lake Michigan. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health and Management 4:293-309.
Smith, R.D. and C.V. Klimas. 2002. A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic
approach to assessing wetlands functions of selected regional wetland subclasses, Yazoo Basin, lower
Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. ERDC/EL TR-02-4. Ecosystem Management and Restoration
Program Research Program, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Stutheit, R.G., M.C. Gilbert, P.M. Whited, and K.L. Lawrence. 2004. A Regional Guidebook for
Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Rainwater Basin
Depressional Wetlands in Nebraska. ERDC/EL TR-04-4. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Uranowski, C., Z. Lin, M. Delcharco, C. Huegel, J. Garcia, I. Bartsch, M.S. Flannery, SJ. Miller, J.
Bacheler, and W. Ainslie. 2003. Regional guidebook for applying the hydro-geomorphic approach to
assessing wetland functions of low-gradient, blackwater riverine wetlands in peninsular Florida.
ERDC/EL TR-03-3. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Program Research Program,
Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Wilder, T.C. and T.H. Roberts. 2002. Regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach
to assessing wetland functions of low-gradient riverine wetlands in western Tennessee. ERDC/EL TR-
02-5. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Program Research Program, Environmental Laboratory,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Wilhelm, G. and D. Ladd. 1988. Natural areas assessment in the Chicago region" Trans. 53rdNorth
America Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 361-375.
Wilhelm, G.S. and L.A. Masters. 1995. Floristic quality assessment in the Chicago region and
application computer programs. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. 1995.
26
-------
6.0 APPENDIX
6.1 Aquatic Macrophyte Community Index (AMCI) for Wisconsin Lakes
Citation(s): Nichols et al. (2000)
Principal Investigator(s): S. Nichols, S. Weber, and B. Shaw
Applicability: natural lakes and impoundments in
State(s): Wisconsin
Ecoregion(s): Northern Lakes and Forests, North-Central Hardwood Forests, Southeastern
Wisconsin Till Plains, Driftless Area
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): Lakes and impoundments in North Lakes and Forests region, lakes
and impoundments in the North -Central Hardwood Forests regions, impoundments in the
Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains regions, lakes in the Driftless area, and Mississippi
Backwater lakes
Plant community(ies): emergent, floating, and submergent plant communities
Sampling protocol: Previous lake survey data compiled from 363 Wisconsin Lakes. Surveys
done following previously established protocols that used a stratified random technique "...with
transects evenly spaced around a water body. Along each transect, sampling points are randomly
located in predetermined depth classes. A sampling point is a 2-m diameter circle divided into
quarters. The presence of a species is noted in each quarter of the circle." AMCI values tested
for ecoregional differences and ecoregion groups without significantly different median values
were combined. Reference established in the ecoregion-lake groups based on the best AMCI
values for that group.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Maximum depth of plant growth, percentage of littoral area
that is vegetated, Simpson's diversity index, relative frequency of submersed species, relative
frequency of sensitive species, taxa number, and relative frequency of exotic species
27
-------
6.2 Iberian Multimetric Plant Index for Iberian Rivers
Citations: Ferreira et al. (2005)
Principal Investigator(s): M. Ferreira, P. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, F. Aguiar, A. Albuquerque
Applicability: Southern Iberian Rivers in Portugal
State(s): not applicable
Ecoregion(s): Algarve region
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): rivers
Plant community(ies): plants growing in the water or on margins and inner banks of rivers
Sampling protocol: Plant surveys were conducted in 100-m long reaches in 32 rivers. The
100-m reaches were located to capture the gradient of current environmental conditions in the
river segment. All species found in the water or on the margins or inner banks of the river were
identified and assigned an abundance score of 5 - highly abundant to 0 - absent. Abiotic data on
water depth, substrate quality and land use also collected. Candidate metrics were selected
a priori and tested by looking at overlap in interquartile ranges between reference and impacted
sites and by correlation with disturbance gradient (first axis of Principle Components Analysis
[PC A]) of eight anthropogenic variables.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Selected metrics divided into four groups. 1) Composition
metrics: riparian species richness, aquatic species richness, annual species richness; 2)
Tolerance: exotic species richness, abundance ofAmndo donax, ruderal species richness; 3)
Trophic: nitrophyllous species richness; 4) Riparian integrity: relative riparian width
28
-------
6.3 Index of Plant Community Integrity (IPCI) for Prairie Pothole Region Wetlands
Citation(s): DeKeyser et al. (2003a, b), Hargiss (2005), Hargiss et al. (2008)
Principal Investigator(s): C. L. M. Hargiss, E. S. DeKeyser, D. R. Kirby, M. J. Ell
Applicability: wetland plant communities in Prairie Pothole Region
State(s): South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana
Ecoregion(s): Northern and Northwestern Glaciated Plains
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): seasonal, temporary, and semi-permanent prairie pothole wetlands
Plant community(ies): emergent (marsh and wet meadow)
Sampling protocol: Reference data collected from 63 temporary, 85 seasonal, and 67 semi-
permanent wetlands in Northern and Northwest Glaciated Plains ecoregions between 1998-2004.
Wetlands were classified using existing classification systems based on water permanence,
salinity, and dominant vegetation. A "spiraling" quadrat (1-m2) sampling method was used in
which quadrats are evenly spaced in a spiral fashion around center of wetland in "low prairie
zone", "wet meadow" zone, "shallow marsh" zone, and "deep marsh" zone. Earlier sampling
used 15 quadrats in each zone; later sampling used 8 quadrats in the low prairie zone, 7 quadrats
in the wet meadow zone, and 5 quadrats each in the shallow and deep marsh zones. All plant
species were identified in the quadrats and percent aerial coverage estimated (primary species);
presence of species noted between quadrats was also recorded (secondary species). Data on
water depth, litter depth, percent open water, percent standing dead, and percent bare bottom
were also recorded.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Richness of native perennial species, number of genera of
native perennial species, richness of grass or grass-like species (Poaceae, Cyperaceae,
Juncaceae), percentage of total species that are annual, biennial, and introduced, richness of
native perennial species in the wet meadow zone, number of species in the wet meadow zone
with a C of C > 4, number of species with a C of C > 5, Floristic Quality Index score.
29
-------
6.4 Index of Vegetation Integrity for Massachusetts Coastal and Freshwater Wetlands
Citation(s): Carlisle et al. (1998, 1999, 2004a, b)
Principal Investigator(s): B. K. Carlisle, J. P. Smith, A. L. Hicks, B. G. Largay, S. L. Garcia
Applicability: tidal salt marshes
State(s): Massachusetts (but possibly also other states to north and south)
Ecoregion(s): Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens and Northeastern Coastal Plain
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): freshwater inland wetlands (riparian depression, isolated depression,
lacustrine fringe) and tidal salt marshes on Cape Code peninsula
Plant community(ies): predominantly emergent but also some shrub and forest
Sampling protocol: Carlisle et al. (1998) sampled 13 wetlands (9 freshwater, 5 tidal) in Waquoit
Bay Watershed, Cape Cod and used randomly placed nested quadrats (average = 7.3 plots/site)
in dominant plant communities: 30-ft. radius circular plot (262.7 m2) for the tree/sapling strata,
15-ft. radius plot (65.7 m2) for the shrub stratum, 5-ft. radius plot (7.3 m2) for the herb stratum.
Diameter at breast height was measured for woody species and coverage estimated for
herbaceous species taking into account unvegetated areas of duff, bare ground, open water.
Summed cover estimates for all species could never be greater than 100%. Plant attribute codes
were assigned for persistent standing litter, invasiveness, opportunism, nutrient status, salinity
tolerance, flood tolerance, habitat affinity.4 The sampling protocol modified in Carlisle et al.
(2004a). Study area was divided into three zones. Two transects were randomly placed in each
zone. All transects were oriented in the same direction. 1-m2 quadrats were placed every 60 ft.
along the transects. Otherwise the same data were collected as in Carlisle et al. (1998, 1999).
Carlisle et al. (2004b) increased the number of transects to 12.
Species code assigned for the following characteristics: persistent standing litter (1 = has PSL, 0 =
does not have), opportunistic (1 = species is opportunistic, 0 species is not opportunistic), invasive (1 = species is
invasive, 0 = species is not invasive), wetness (OBL = 1.0, FACW+ = 0.91, FACW = 0.82, FACW- = 0.71, FAC+ =
0.60, FAC = 0.50, FAC- = 0.71 [sic], FACU+ = 0.29, FACU = 0.18, FACU- = 0.09, UPL = 0.00), flood tolerance of
freshwater species (Very high = 1.00, High = 0.80, Medium = 0.60, Low = 0.40, Intolerant = 0.20), salinity tolerance
of salt marsh species (Very high = 1.00, High = 0.80, Medium = 0.60, Low = 0.40, Intolerant = 0.20), nutrient status
or species affinity for high, medium, or low nutrient conditions (bogs-lowest nutrients = 0.12, sands-low nutrients =
0.23, acid woods-till-sandy loam = 0.34, alluvial acid soils with flood deposits = 0.45, sweet soils in calcareous areas
= 0.78, disturbed or enriched soils = 0.89, very disturbed or heavily enriched soils = 1.00).
30
-------
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics:
Index of Vegetation Integrity Metrics.
metric
Community
similarity
Taxa richness*
Persistent standing
litter
Invasive
Opportunistic
Wetness*
Flood tolerance
(freshwater only)
Salinity tolerance
Nutrient affinity
Habitat affinity**
Rationale
Resemblance of communities to reference
sites will shift as stressors increase
Total number of plant species will change
as stressors increase
Decomposition provides important food
chain support and habitat structure
Increased presence of invasive species
reduces habitat and other functions
Opportunistic species will colonize or
persist as habitat is altered by stressors
Species will shift towards upland or
obligate due to hydrologic stressors
Species with higher flood tolerance will
colonize/persist as flood duration changes
Species with lower salinity tolerance will
colonize/persist as tidal hydrology changes
Species composition will shift with nutrient
enrichment and elevated eutrophication
Habitat specialists (e.g. high marsh forbs)
will decline with degradation
response to
stressors
Decline
Variable
Rise
Rise
Rise
Variable
Variable
Decline
Decline
Decline
metric computation
Total percent shared species
Absolute difference of total taxa
Total abundance of species with a
positive PSL attribute
Total abundance of species with a
positive invasiveness attribute
Total abundance of species with positive
opportunistic attributes
Percent similarity of wet value weighted
for abundance
Percent similarity of flood tolerance
weighted for abundance
Percent similarity of salinity tolerance
value weighted for abundance
Percent similarity of nutrient status value
weighted for abundance
not listed in Carlisle et al. (2004a)
' used in Carlisle et al. (1998, 1999), not used in Carlisle et al. (2004a, b).
** used in Carlisle et al. (2004a,b).
-------
6.5 Index of Wetland Condition—Vegetation Quality Assessment Subindex for the State of
Victoria, Australia
Citation(s): DSE (2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007), Parkes et al. (2003)
Principal Investigator(s): D. Frood, D. Parkes, A. Gates, M. Kohout, P. Papas, F. Ferwerda, H.
Anderson, J. Holmes
Applicability: all wetlands in the State of Victoria
State(s): State of Victoria, Australia
Ecoregion(s): all ecoregions in the State of Victoria
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): all hydrogeomorphic classes
Plant community(ies): 110 identified "Ecological Vegetation Communities (EVCs)
Sampling protocol: Data from over 800 releve plots and other floristic data used to develop
descriptions of EVCs for 110 plant communities. Each EVC has the following: 1) a list of key
indicator species (one or more required to be present); 2) critical life form groupings found in the
EVC (e.g., for EVC 8 for Wet Heathland, the critical life form groups are at least 3 spp. with 5%
cover of medium graminoid species, 2 spp. of medium herbs, 3 spp. and 15% cover of medium to
small herbs, 2 spp. and 2% cover of small shrubs, and 2 sp. and 5% cover of tall graminoids);
3) a list of "high threat" weed species for that EVC; 4) indications of altered processes (e.g. in
EVC 13 for Brackish Sedgeland this would be invasion of dryland spp. and % cover of
Austrodanthonia spp.); and 5) vegetation structure and health (e.g. in EVC 12 for Wet Swale
Herbland the benchmark cover is at least 10% cover of grasses, 20% cover of herbs, and 10%
cover of sedges). With this front-loaded detailed community specific scoring scheme, the
sampling protocol for Vegetation Quality Assessment in the Index of Wetland Condition is a
simple one-page form.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: There are four metrics in the Vegetation Quality Assessment
of the IWC: 1) percentage of critical life form groups for the specific EVC that are present in the
wetland; 2) the aerial cover of all weeds in the wetland and aerial cover of high threat weeds
specific to that EVC; 3) indications of altered processes specific to that EVC (for many EVCs
none are recognized); and 4) the percentage of structural dominants for that EVC which are
meeting or exceeding the minimum benchmark percents
32
-------
6.6 Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) for Florida Lakes
Citation(s): Fore (2005)
Principal Investigator(s): L. Fore and many
biologists and staff from Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Applicability: lakes in Florida
State(s): Florida
Ecoregion(s)i 3 main ecoregions of Florida: the *
northern panhandle, southern peninsula, and the »
northeast
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): fringing wetlands
and submersed and floating aquatic macrophytes
in deeper water of lakes (defined as fresh water bodies > 2 acres of open water and sufficiently
deep to require a boat for sampling)
Plant community(ies): see above
Sampling protocol: Index derived from data from 95 lakes collected in 2000-2003 and tested
with data from 63 lakes in 2004. Lake divided into 12 approximately equal pie-shaped wedge
sections. Vegetation identified using two methods 1) by motoring along the shore in the boat
and identifying vegetation by site, and 2) by motoring perpendicular to the shore to the center of
the lake and identifying vegetation in a 5-m wide belt transect. Separate taxa lists were
maintained for each of the 12 wedges. Plants were codes as "dominant," "co-dominant," or
"present."
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: The following metrics were selected for the Lake IVI:
1) percent native plant species, 2) percent invasive plant species, 3) percent sensitive plant
species, and 4) dominant C of C (the C of C score of the one or two dominant plants in the
wedge). The percent metrics were percent of total species, not percent of abundance
33
-------
6.7 Indices of Biotic Integrity for Minnesota Wetlands
Citation(s): Galatowitsch et al. (downloaded 2007) partially reported in Galatowitsch et al.
(1999)
Principal Investigator(s): S. Galatowitsch, J. Tester, D. Whited, S. Moe
Applicability: eight major wetland types in Minnesota
State(s): Minnesota
Ecoregion(s): Northern Glaciated Plains, Western Corn Belt Plains, Lake Agissiz Plains, North
Central Hardwood Forests
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depression, riverine and possibly slopes
Plant community(ies): forest glacial marshes, prairie glacial marshes, wet prairies and sedge
meadows5, fringing (non-calcareous littoral wetlands), small river floodplain wetlands (shrub,
wet meadow), medium river floodplain wetlands (forests), and large river floodplain
wetlands(forests)
Sampling protocol: Vegetation surveyed at each site between July 1, 1995 and September 1,
1996. For emergent communities, a 10-m x 10-m plot was generally used. For forest
communities, plots of 200 m2 to 400 m2 were used. Percent cover was recorded using
Braun/Blanquet cover classes: r = one individual, + = few individuals, insignificant cover, 1 =
scattered individuals (1-5%), 2 = 5-25%, 3 = 25-50%, 4=50-75%, 5 = 75-100%. For forest
communities, vertical structure was measured using height classes: 1 = <0.1m, 2 = 0.1-0.5 m, 3
= 0.5-2.Om, 4 = 2-5m, 5 = 5-10m, 6 = 10-20m, 7 = 20-35m, 8 =>35m. Soils characterized to
depth of 1 m using a soil probe. Water depth measured in each plot.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Potential indicators identified with significant or
interpretable correlations to disturbance or landscape variables were: 1) various species richness
indicators; 2) indicators related to A/P ratio; 3) indicators related to forb richness (including
importance of native perennial herbs, number and importance of spring ephemerals, importance
of Polygonum, importance of Aster); 4) indicators related to woody species (e.g. richness of
shrub species, richness and importance of Salix species, richness and importance of woody
species, richness of tree species with cover >5%, importance of Acer species, importance of
Ulmus species); 5) indicators related to invasive species (including importance of invasive
perennials, ratio of importance ofPhalaris to Carex/Calamagrostis, richness, importance and
percentage of introduced species, ratio of Typha to all emergent species, importance of Typha
species); 6) indicators related to aquatic species (number of Potamogeton species, number of
submersed aquatic taxa); 7) indicators related to graminoids (e.g. ratio of graminoids to
herbaceous species, richness and importance of native perennial graminoids, richness and
importance of Carex species, importance of Carex and Calamagrostis, importance of
Cyperaceae, proportion of graminoid species)
(note: many of these indicators are specific to one of the community types listed above)
Some of these wetlands may also be "slopes."
34
-------
6.8 Multimetric Index for Depressions and Riverine Wetlands in Montana
Citation(s): Jones (2004)
Principal Investigator(s): W. M. Jones
Applicability: temporarily and seasonally flooded depressions (prairie potholes) and
herbaceous-dominated intermittent and ephemeral riverine wetlands
State(s): Montana
Ecoregion(s): North Western Glaciated Plains
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depression, riverine
Plant community(ies): emergent (submergent, floating, marsh, wet meadow), shrub
Sampling protocol: Targeted design used to select 27 depressional and 29 riverine wetlands.
Depressions restricted to temporarily and seasonally inundated wetlands as determined by NWI
maps. Riverine wetlands selected from Milk River tributaries with 0-2% valley slope.
Depressional wetlands stratified by inundation period and riverine wetlands by geomorphology.
Vegetation was sampled from each inundation zone or fluvial surface using randomly placed 1 x
0.5 m quadrats with random quadrat samples repeated until no new species were found. Percent
canopy cover estimated for each species. Various physical and disturbance parameters also
recorded and synthesized into disturbance rank. Potential metrics selected that had strong linear
or curvilinear relationship with the disturbance gradient. If metrics were redundant, metric with
higher R2 or ecological relevance was selected. Metrics scored using 1,3,5 scoring scheme and
summed into Multimetric Index.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Depressions: relative cover of native perennials, relative
cover of species with coefficients of conservatism > or = 4, relative cover of exotic species, FQI
score, Simpson Diversity Index; Riverine: richness of native perennials, relative cover of
intolerant species, proportion of tolerant species, Floristic Quality Index (FQI) score, Simpson
Diversity Index
35
-------
6.9 Multi-taxa Wetland Vegetation Indices for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands including
Maximum Canopy Height Index (A.I 1 and A. 12 of the Vegetation Indicators from the Great
Lakes Environmental Indicator (GLEI) Project)6
Citation(s): Niemi et al. (2006), Bourdaghs et al. (2006), Frieswyk et al. (2007), Johnston et al.
(2007)
Principal Investigator(s): C. A. Johnston, B. L. Bedford, J. B. Zedler
Applicability: Great Lakes coastal wetlands
State(s): Great Lakes states (MN, WI, IL, MI, OH, NY) and Ontario
Ecoregion(s): ecoregions associated with coastal area in the above states
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): Great Lakes coastal wetlands (open-coastal, riverine [drowned
river mouth] and protected wetlands)
Plant community(ies): emergent coastal wetland plant communities
Sampling protocol: Ninety wetlands, randomly selected using previously established stratified
random sample (Danz et al. 2005, 2007). Sampling was done in 1-m x 1-m plots along randomly
placed transects within areas of herbaceous vegetation. Transects were located by GIS prior to
sampling using the SAMPLE program (Johnston et al., 2009) which randomly placed transects in
areas mapped by national and state wetland inventories as emergent vegetation. Each transect
intersected a randomly selected point and was oriented perpendicular to the perceived water
depth gradient extending from open water to the upland boundary and/or wetland shrub
dominated zone. Transect length and number of sample plots was determined in proportion to
the size of the wetland (20 plots per 60 ha, minimum transect length 40-m; minimum plots per
wetland = 8). Plot locations were established in the field by dividing each transect into 20-m
segments and randomly locating in a plot each segment using a random number table. All
vascular plants were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible and large identifiable non-
vascular plants were also identified and given cover estimations using the Braun-Blaunqet cover
class ranges: <1%. 1 - 5%, 5 - 25%, 25-50%, 50 - 75%, 75 - 100%. Midpoints of the cover
classes were used in all data analyses.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: 1) Indicators which worked included Floristic Quality Index
and mean Coefficient of Conservatism (Bourdaghs et al. 2006; 2) Percent of all taxa that are
native plants; 3) Multitaxa wetland vegetation indices based on mean percent cover in sample
plots): (a) 10 taxa index = 2.141 - 0.029 (Carex stricta) - 0.027 (Carex lasiocarpa) - 0.352
6 Although not actually proposing a multi-metric IBI, Albert and Mine (2004) list several metrics as candidates for
further investigation for Great Lakes basin-wide use: 1) Floristic Quality Assessment Index variants of this index,
e.g. mean C of C; 2) percent emergent cover in emergent zones; 3) percent turbidity intolerant species; and 4)
several metrics related to pollution tolerance or intolerance of certain plant species. The sampling protocol was as
follows: "Species presence and coverage were recorded along short transects located perpendicular to the
hydrologic gradient. Five randomly located 0.5-m2 quadrats were sampled in each vegetation zone along each
transect. The starting point for each transect was randomly located, beginning with 25 m of the upland edge of the
wet meadow zone, with sampling points located 25 m apart. The location of each sampling quadrat around a
sampling point was selected using randomly selected compass bearings and distances from 1 m to 9 m. Percent
cover was estimated for each plant species in the sample quadrat; coverage was estimated for all emergent, floating,
and submergent species. Substrate, organic depth, water depth, and water clarity (using a Secchi disk) were
recorded. For most wetlands, sampling was restricted to the wet meadow and emergent/submergent zone. Where
there was a wide submergent zone with emergent vegetation, five additional sampling points were included. Aquatic
macrophyte data were then summarized and the mean cover value for each species determined for each site" (p. 13,
Albert and Mine 2004).
36
-------
(Cicuta bulbiferd) - 0.040 (Equistetum fluviatile) + 0.013 (Lemna minor) +0.161 (Lythrum
thyrsiflord) + 0.025 (Lythrum salicarid) + 0.020 (Phragmites australis) +0.039 (Polygonum
amphibium) + O.Ol7(Typha angustifolia, T. x glauca); (b) 4 taxa index = 2.141 - 0.029 (Carex
stricta) - 0.027 (Carex lasiocarpa) + 0.020 (Phragmites australis) +0.039 (Polygonum
amphibium) + O.Ol7(Typha angustifolia, T. x glauca); 4) maximum emergent canopy height
during July/August: 0.820 + 0.069 (maximum emergent canopy height); 5) Species Dominance
Index (SDI) calculated similar to a traditional importance value by averaging mean plant cover
(abundance of dominant species), mean species suppression (number of species associated with
the dominant species) and tendency toward high cover (likelihood that a species is abundant
when it occurs)
37
-------
6.10 Plant Index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) for Drowned River Mouth Coastal Wetlands of
Lake Michigan
Citation(s): Simon et al. (2001), Rothrock and Simon (2006)
Principal Investigator(s): P. E. Rothrock, T. P. Simon, P. M. Stewart
Applicability: drowned river mouth wetlands in Lake Michigan
State(s): Illinois, Indiana, Michigan
Ecoregion(s): Northern Lakes and Forests, North Central Hardwood Forests, Southeastern
Wisconsin Till Plains, Central Corn Belt Plains, Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift
Plains
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): drowned river mouth coastal wetlands
Plant community(ies): emergent (possibly shrub and forest but unclear from source)
Sampling protocol: This PIBI represents an extension of the PIBI proposed in Simon et al.
(2001) and Rothrock et al. (in press) to drowned river mouth wetlands in Lake Michigan.
Fifteen wetlands were randomly chosen using a tessellated, stratified design incorporating
ecoregions and wetland size. Qualitative sampling techniques were used to evaluate the wetland
vegetation. Plant sampling and identification was done by surveying the lake up to 35 times the
channel width along the shore in vegetation zones. Sampling was intended to obtain a
representative qualitative survey focusing on biological diversity and relative abundance. All
species of obligate and facultative plants were identified and assigned an abundance value: 1 =
observed (only one individual found), 2 = rare (species found 2-4 times at the site), 3 =
rare/common (found more than 4 times but never a component of a community), 4 = common
(species easily located at the site), 5 = very common (slightly dominant, comprising about 25%
of the community at a site), 6 = abundant (comprised 25-100% of the community).
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Eleven metrics divided into four functional categories
following the rationale of Simon et al. (2001): 1) species richness and composition (total
number of species, number of sedge-rush species, number of submergent species); 2) species
tolerance (percent sensitive species, percent tolerant and exotic species); 3) guild structure
(number of obligate wetland species, average cover of native submergent species, percent
pioneer species, percent weed species); and 4) vegetation abundance (dominance, relative
abundance of exotics)
38
-------
6.11 Plant Index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) for Lacustrine Wetlands
Citation(s): Rothrock et al. (2008)
Principal Investigator(s): P. E. Rothrock, T. P. Simon, P. M. Stewart
Applicability: littoral zone of inland lakes in Illinois and Indiana
State(s): Indiana
Ecoregion(s): Central Corn Belt Plains, Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift Plains
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): fringing
Plant community(ies): fringing marsh communities (submersed, floating, emergent)
Sampling protocol: Sixty-five natural lakes from northwest Indiana using the least-impacted
identification criteria of the Advanced Identification (ADID) project. The lakes were randomly
selected as a subset of the best lakes but also included a range of quality. Qualitative sampling
techniques targeted towards biological diversity and relative abundance were used. Plant
sampling and identification were done by surveying the lake up to 500-m along the shore in
submergent, floating-leaved, and emergent zones (the emergent zone up to 4-m from the water's
edge or the upland edge, whichever was nearer). All species of obligate and facultative plants
were identified and assigned an abundance value: 1 = observed (only one individual found),
2 = rare (species found 2-4 times at the site), 3 = rare/common (found more than 4 times but
never a component of a community), 4 = common (species easily located at the site), 5 = very
common (slightly dominant, comprising about 25% of the community at a site), 6 = abundant
(comprised 25-100% of the community).
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Eleven metrics divided into four functional categories
following the rationale of Simon et al. (2001): 1) species richness and composition (total
number of species, number of submergent species, number of floating-leaved species, number of
emergent species); 2) species tolerance (number of sensitive species, percent tolerant and exotic
species); 3) guild structure (relative abundance of obligate wetland species, relative abundance
of pioneer species, relative abundance of woody species); and 4) vegetation abundance (average
cover, relative abundance of exotics)
39
-------
6.12 Plant-based Indices of Biotic Integrity (PIBIs) for Wetlands in Pennsylvania
Citation: Miller et al. (2004), Miller et al. (2006)
Principal Investigator(s): S. Miller, D. Wardrop, W. Mahaney, R. Brooks
Applicability: Miller et al. (2006) proposed PIBI for headwater wetlands in central
Pennsylvania. Miller et al. (2004) proposed PIBI for wetlands throughout Pennsylvania (the
former is summarized here since the metrics and methods were the same)
State(s): Pennsylvania
Ecoregion(s): Ridge and Valley Province
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): riverine headwater wetlands
Plant community(ies): forest and herbaceous
Sampling protocol: Subset of 149 wetlands sampled in Ridge and Valley Province since 1993
selected for index development and calibration comprised of headwater complex wetlands. Forty
sites used in model development and 47 in model calibration. Dominance and richness data
collected from each wetland by sampling a 1-acre area of the wetland by locating nested plots in
a grid across the sampling area. Herbaceous cover estimated from 0.5-m x 2-m quadrat;
herbaceous richness, shrub richness, and shrub volume estimated from a 3-m radius circular plot;
tree richness and diameter at breast height are measured in a 11.6-m radius circular plot.
Preliminary list of potential metrics compiled a priori from the literature, other IBIs and
observations of plant community patterns at the sample sites. Metric selection was primarily
based on dose-response relationships to a disturbance scale, lack of redundancy and whether they
were community-, functional group- or species-based.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Adjusted Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) score,
% cover of tolerant plant species,
% annual species, % non-native species, %invasive species, % trees, %vascular cryptogams,
%cover ofPhalaris arundinacea
40
-------
6.13 Plant Index of Biological Integrity (PIBI) for Large Depressional Wetlands in Central
Minnesota
Citation(s): Gernes and Helgen (1999), Gernes and Helgen (2002)
Principal Investigator(s): M. Gernes, J. Helgen
Applicability: small and large depressional wetlands in Minnesota
State(s): Minnesota
Ecoregion(s): North-Central Hardwoods Ecoregion
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depressions, fringing wetlands
Plant community(ies): emergent
Sampling protocol: Gernes and Helgen (1999) sampled 27 depressional emergent wetlands.
Indicators were evaluated, metrics selected, and a plant-based IBI developed. In Gernes and
Helgen (2002), 44 "large-depressional wetlands" sampled were defined as "...semi-permanently
to permanently inundated palustrine wetlands [ranging in size from] 10 to 100+ acres [with an]
average depth of 2-m [and which] typically support a well developed emergent fringe plant
community." The metrics proposed in Gernes and Helgen (1999) were tested. All sites were
selected to represent gradient of disturbance. All plant species were identified in a 10-m x 10-m
plot and assigned to a cover class (< 1%/rare, 1-5%, 5-15%, 15-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-
100%). Plots were located within the emergent and submergent zones of the wetland. Water
and sediment samples collected and analyzed for inorganic parameters and metals. Candidate
metrics evaluated by comparing plant community attributes to a previously developed human
disturbance scale and to concentrations of chemical constituents.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Number of vascular genera, number of nonvascular genera,
%cover of Carex species, richness of sensitive species, ratio of tolerant species to all species,
number of grass-like (grass, sedge, rush) species, richness of perennial species, richness of
aquatic guild species, equitability of perennial plant cover, relative cover of species with
persistent litter (e.g. Typha, Phalaris arundinaced)
41
-------
6.14 Plant-based Index of Biological Integrity (PIBI) for Depressional Wetlands in the
Temperate Prairie Region of Minnesota
Citation(s): Genet and Bourdaghs (2006)
Principal Investigator(s): J. Genet, M. Bourdaghs
Applicability: seasonal depressional wetlands
State(s): Minnesota
Ecoregion(s): Western Corn Belt Plains, Northern Glaciated Plains, North-Central Hardwood
Forest
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depressions
Plant community(ies): emergent
Sampling protocol: Plant community data collected from 47 depressional wetlands in three
ecoregions using same methods as in Gernes and Helgen (2002) (Appendix 8.12). Metrics and
IBIs in Gernes and Helgen (2002) evaluated for extension into Western Corn Belt Plains and
Northern Glaciated Plains ecoregions by comparing IBI and metrics against human disturbance
gradient using simple linear regression and versus chemical parameters. Significant
relationships were found in the new ecoregions but the IBI needed to be calibrated to reflect
metric ranges in the new regions. The Temperate Prairies Plant IBI was developed by evaluating
126 metrics based on six criteria applied in a stepwise fashion (ecological meaning, easily
quantifiable, sufficient range, disturbance response, low redundancy, high precision). Twenty-
five metrics met four of the six criteria and were evaluated for redundancy, with nine metrics
finally being selected as non-redundant with metrics in each of the four main metric groups:
taxa richness, community structure, sensitive/tolerant taxa, and diversity. Metrics were scored
using a continuous scoring procedure.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: 1) taxa richness: aquatic guild richness, graminoid richness,
perennial richness, vascular genera richness; 2) community structure: number of distinct plant
guilds, relative cover of invasive Typha species; 3) sensitive and tolerant taxa: number of
sensitive taxa, percentage of tolerant taxa; 4) diversity: Shannon diversity index
42
-------
6.15 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Index of Biological Integrity for Lake Ontario Coastal
Wetlands
Citation(s): Grabas (2005), Grabas and Pernanen (2004), Grabas et al. (2003)
Principal Investigator(s): G. Grabas, S. Pernanen
Applicability: submersed aquatic plant community in Lake Ontario coastal marshes
State(s)/Province(s): Ontario
Ecoregion(s): Lake Erie Lowland, Lake Nipigon
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): coastal marshes
Plant community(ies): submersed aquatic bed
Sampling protocol: Sampled 29 coastal marshes in Lake Ontario. Sampling consisted of 20
randomly placed 1-m x 1-m quadrats in the open water basin of each wetland. Presence and
percent cover of each submerged and floating-leaved species was recorded. Twelve metrics
tested for suitability by comparing average metric value (from 20 quadrats) to disturbance.
Species also grouped into water quality guilds (turbidity tolerant/intolerant, nutrient responsive).
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Five of 12 metrics were selected for inclusion in the IBI:
richness of turbidity-intolerant species, richness of native species, Floristic Quality Index,
relative cover of turbidity-intolerant species, total coverage of plants
43
-------
6.16 Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) for Headwater Wetlands in the Southern
Rocky Mountains v. 1.0
Citation(s): Rocchio (2006a, b; 2007)
Principal Investigator(s): J. Rocchio
Applicability: headwater wetlands (1st, 2nd, 3rd order streams) in southern Rocky Mountains
including Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadows, Rocky Mountain Subalpine-
Montane Fens, and Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparia Shrublands
State(s): Colorado
Ecoregion(s): Southern Rocky Mountain
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): slope, riverine
Plant community(ies): riparian shrublands, fens, extremely rich fens, slope wet meadows,
riverine wet meadows
Sampling protocol: Existing classification systems (Ecological Systems, Hydrogeomorphic,
Physiognomy, Soil Type) were used and evaluated. Sites were selected to represent a gradient of
disturbance by using available map resources to classify potential sites into disturbance classes.
Seventy-five sites were selected. A wetland Assessment Area (AA) was delineated using
wetland boundary, ecological system boundary and size and land use related boundaries in
accordance with narrative AA rules. Within the AA, usually one 20-m x 50-m plot established
to maximize abiotic/biotic heterogeneity according to plot location rules. Presence and cover for
each species identified in plot was recorded using cover codes (1 = trace/one individual, 2 = 0-
1%, 3 = 1-2%, 4 = 2-5%, 5 = 5-10%, 6 = 10-25%, 7 = 25-50%, 8 = 50-75%, 9 = 75-95%, 10 =
>95%). Two different disturbance gradients were used and evaluated (Human Disturbance
Index and Delaware Rapid Assessment Method v. 2.0). Ordination and Multi-response
Permutation Procedure was used to evaluate the classification system. 133 plant community
attributes were evaluated relating to richness, relative cover, mean cover, and proportion of
species composition by various functional and composition guilds by comparing them to the
disturbance gradients. Metrics were selected by considering discriminatory power, correlation to
disturbance, scope of detection, and redundancy. Metrics were scored using a continuous
scoring method versus the traditional IBI approach.
44
-------
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics:
metric category (metric)
NONNATIVE SPECIES (%nonnative species)
NATIVITY (mean cover of dominant native
species)
FQAI METRICS (mean C native species, mean
cover of FQI for native species)
HYDROPHYTES (wetland indicator status of all
species, relative cover of hydrophytes, mean
cover of hydrophytes, mean cover of native
hydrophytes)
PERENNIAL/ ANNUAL (relative cover of
annuals,
% native perennials, mean cover native
perennials, perennial richness, native A/P ratio)
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS (mean cover of bare
ground, mean cover of litter)
INVASIVE SPECIES (invasive richness)
FORB SPECIES (% native foibs, Asteraceae
richness)
GRAMINOIDS (relative cover of Poaceae)
INTOLERANT SPECIES (% intolerant species,
mean cover of intolerant species)
TOLERANT SPECIES (% tolerant species)
FUNCTIONAL GROUP
(rhizomatous/nonrhizomatous ratio, mean cover
of rhizomatous species)
TOTAL METRICS FOR EACH COMMUNITY
riparian
shrublands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
fen
X
X
X
X
X
6
extremely
rich fen
X
X
X
X
X
6
slope
wet
meado
ws
X
X
X
X
5
riverine
wet
meadows
X
X
X
X
X
6
45
-------
6.17 Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) for Small-Order Streams in Southwest
Montana
Citation(s): Jones (2005)
Principal Investigator(s): W. M. Jones
Applicability: riparian wetlands on small order streams in southwestern Montana
State(s): Montana
Ecoregion(s): Northern Rocky Mountain, Montana Valley and Foothill Prairies
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): riverine (1st to 3rd order low gradient streams)
i 8m
0.2-m x 0.5-m quadrat (abundance of herbaceous vegetation, bare ground, height above bankfull
discharge)
4-m2 circular plot (abundance of woody vegetation, pugging/hummocking density, bank
stability, browse intensity)
Plant community(ies): emergent and shrub vegetation growing along streams
Sampling protocol: Potential sample locations were streams previously evaluated for functional
status by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service using standardized riparian
assessments. Potential sample reaches were stratified by condition classes and 11 "functioning",
9 "functioning at risk" and 10 "nonfunctioning" were sampled. "The sample unit was a 100-m
stream reach that was subsampled using two types of systematically placed sample frames: 0.1-
m2 (0.2-m x 0.5-m) quadrats and 4-m2 (1.13-m radius) plots. Sample frames were placed along
transects running perpendicular and parallel to the stream channel such that an area of
100-m x 8-m was sampled along each side of the channel.
Species abundance was estimated using Daubenmire cover classes (1 < 5%, 2 = 5-25%, 3 = 25-
50% , 4 = 50-75%, 5 = 75-95%, 6 >95%). Total cover and cover by age class for woody species
estimated. The number of woody seedlings present in each plot was counted. Herbaceous
species were sampled in quadrats, woody species from plots. Physical parameters relating to
grazing related stressors also recorded. Disturbance measures relating to grazing intensity and
road density incorporated in composite disturbance index using PCA. Potential metrics screened
based on their ability to discriminate between least and most disturbed sites, correlation with the
46
-------
disturbance gradient, and redundancy: most responsive, non-redundant metrics selected for the
VIBI. Of 27 candidate metrics tested, 8 were selected.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Relative cover of native graminoids, relative cover of exotic
species, relative cover of annuals/biennials, willow seedling density (number per m2), cover of
willow seedlings+young willows, cover weighted FQAI, relative cover of hydrophytes, cover-
weighted bank stability index
47
-------
6.18 Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) for Ohio Wetlands
Citation(s): Mack et al. (2000), Mack et al. (2008), Mack (2001), Mack (2004a, b, c), Mack and
Micacchion (2006), Mack (2006), Mack (2007), Mack (2008)
Principal Investigator(s): J. J. Mack, M. S. Fennessy, M. Micacchion
Applicability: wetlands in Ohio and likely surrounding states with shared ecoregions
State(s): Ohio (and neighboring states with shared ecoregions)
Ecoregion(s): Erie-Ontario Drift and Lake Plains, Eastern Corn Belt Plains, Huron/Erie Lake
Plains, Western Allegheny Plateau, Michigan/Indiana Drift and Lake Plains
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depression, riverine, impoundment, slope, bog, coastal
Plant community(ies): marsh (all kinds), wet meadow (fen, wet prairie, other wet meadow
communities), shrub (deciduous shrub swamps, bog shrub swamps, fen shrub swamps), forest
(vernal pools, wet woods, bottomland swamp forests, bog forests)
Sampling protocol: Sites in this study were selected using a targeted approach to ensure that
wetlands representing the full gradient of disturbance, different plant communities and
hydrogeomorphic classes, and different ecoregions were adequately represented in the data set.
A detailed classification based on plant community and hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class was
developed and evaluated by modifying and adapting existing classification systems. The plot-
based method described by Peet et al. (1998) was used (a modification of the "Whittaker" plot
(Shmida, 1984). At most sites, a "standard" 20-m x 50-m plot was established (0.1-ha). Where
the standard plot would not fit or would not have adequately characterized the plant community
being sampled, the size or shape of the plot was modified to obtain a representative sample.
Within the plot, presence and cover was recorded for herb and shrub stratums. Percent cover was
estimated using cover classes of Peet et al. (1998) (solitary/few, 0-1%, 1-2.5%, 2.5-5%, 5-10%,
10-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-90%, 90-95%, 95-99%). The midpoints of the cover classes were
used in all analyses. All woody species in the plot >lm tall were counted and assigned to
diameter at breast height (dbh) classes as recommended by Peet et al. (1998) (0-lcm, l-2cm, 2-
5cm, 5-10cm, 10-15cm, 15-20cm, 20-25cm, 25-30cm, 30-35cm, 35-40cm). Trees with dbh
>40cm were individually measured. Midpoints of the diameter classes were used in all analyses.
Other data collected included standing biomass (g/m2 from eight 0.1m2 clip plots) and various
physical variables (e.g. % open water, depth to saturated soils, amount of coarse woody debris).
A soil pit was dug in the center of every plot and soil color, texture, and depth to saturation was
recorded. A soil sample was collected from the top 12 cm and analyzed for standard nutrient
parameters and metals at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency laboratory. If standing
water was present in the wetland, a grab sample of water was collected and analyzed for various
water quality parameters. Refer to Mack (2004c) for a detailed description of vegetation
sampling procedures.
48
-------
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics:
Description of metrics used in VIBI-E, VIBI-F, VIBI-SH. "E" = emergent, "F" = forested", "SH" = shrub.
metric
Carex
dicot
shade
shrub
hydrophyte
A/P ratio
SVP
FQAI
%bryophyte
%hydrophyte
%sensitive
%tolerant
%invasive
graminoids
pole timber
density
subcanopy
IV
canopy IV
biomass
E, F,
SH
E, SH
E, SH
F
E, SH
E, SH
E
F, SH
E, F,
SH
F, SH
F
E, F,
SH
E, F,
SH
E
F
F, SH
F
E
type
richness
richness
richness
richness
richness
ratio
richness
wt richness
index
dominance
dominance
ratio
dominance
ratio
dominance
ratio
dominance
ratio
density
ratio
importance
value
importance
value
productivity
description
Number of species in the genus Carex. Cyperaceae used as
a substitute metric for Lake Erie Coastal Marshes
Number of native dicotyledon species
Number of native shade-tolerant or shade-facultative species.
Number of native FACWor OBL shrub species
Number of vascular plant species with a Facultative Wet
(FACW) or Obligate
Ratio of annuals to perennials
Number of seedless vascular plant (ferns, fern allies) species
The Floristic Quality Assessment Index score
Relative cover of all bryophyte species
Relative cover of shade/facultative-tolerant FACW and OBL
plants in the herb and shrub stratums
Relative cover of plants in herb and shrub stratums with a
Coefficient of Conservatism ( C of C ) of 6,7,8,9 and 1 0
Relative cover of plants in herb and shrub stratums with a C
of Cof 0, 1, and 2
Relative cover of Typha, Phalaris arundinacea, and
Phragmites australis
The relative density of a tree species 1 0 and 25 cm dbh
The sum of mean importance value for native shade tolerant
subcanopy species plus the mean importance value of
facultative shade subcanopy species
The mean importance value of canopy species
Standing biomass (g/m2) from eight 0.1 m2clip plots.
49
-------
6.19 Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI)
Citation(s): Lane et al. (2003), Lane (2003), Reiss (2004, 2006), Reiss and Brown (2005)
Principal Investigator(s): K. C. Reiss, C. R. Lane, M. T. Brown, M. Murray-Hudson, M. B.
Vivas
Applicability: depressional and riverine forest and emergent wetlands in Florida
State(s): Florida
Ecoregions: Florida panhandle, north Florida, central Florida, south Florida
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depression, riverine (forest strand, forest floodplain)
Plant community(ies): isolated forests (pondcypress domes), isolated herbaceous (marshes),
forest strand, forest floodplain
Sampling protocol: The FWCI involved several interlocking studies that developed and
extended the index to different wetland types looking at diatoms, macrophytes, and
macroinvertebrates as indicators. Initial work by Lane et al. (2003) sampled 75 isolated
depressional marshes in north, central, and south Florida using a targeted design to capture the
full gradient of disturbance. Wetland macrophytes were identified and counted in 1-m x 5-m
quadrats along four belt transects laid out east-west and north-south to the center of the wetland.
Plant community attributes were primarily evaluated by comparing attributes to the human
disturbance gradients. No significant regional differences noted in metric performance. FWCI
calculated by scoring metrics with 0, 3, 7, 10 scoring scheme with a maximum of 50 points.
Reiss (2004) sampled 118 isolated forest depressions (pondcypress domes) divided into
reference, agricultural and urban disturbance classes and in all four ecoregions. Three
independent disturbance gradients were used: Landscape Development Index (LDI), Florida
Wetland Rapid Assessment Protocol (WRAP), and Minnesota Human Disturbance Index (HDI).
The same field protocol as in Lane et al. (2003) was used. Coefficients of Conservatism
assigned and summary statistics calculated for macrophyte data including richness, evenness,
and diversity. Multi-Response Permutation Procedure used to test similarity of plant
communities between ecoregions. Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling used to relate
community composition to environmental gradients. Two hundred thirty eight attributes were
evaluated in the following metric categories: tolerance, autoecological, community structure,
community balance, functional groups. Candidate metrics selected if they had a constant and
predictable relationship to the LDI, were non-redundant, and could distinguish between low and
high LDI groups. Finally, in Reiss and Brown (2005) earlier indices extended to forest strand
and floodplain wetlands using similar sampling protocol (except transects located perpendicular
to stream channel).
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Lane et al. (2003) proposed 5 metrics for the FWCI:
% sensitive species, % tolerant species, % exotic species, A:P ratio, and average coefficient of
conservatism. Reiss (2004) proposed six metrics for the MWCI: tolerant indicator species,
sensitive indicator species, modified FQI score, exotic species, native perennial species, and
wetland status of species. Reiss and Brown (2005) proposed five metrics for the Florida
Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): proportion of tolerant species, proportion of sensitive
species, FQI score, proportion of exotic species, proportion of native perennial species
50
-------
6.20 Wisconsin Wetland Plant Biotic Index (WWPBI)
Citation: Lillie et al. (2003), Lillie (2000)
Principal Investigator(s): R. A. Lillie, P. Garrison, S. I. Dodson, R. A. Bautz, G. LaLiberte
Applicability: small (< 4 ha), depressional, palustrine wetlands
State(s): Wisconsin
Ecoregion(s): Southeast Wisconsin Till Plains, Wisconsin Driftless Area
Hydrogeomorphic class(es): depressions
Plant community(ies): emergent, shrub, forest (although primarily emergent communities)
Sampling protocol: Seventy-four wetlands sampled in four level IV ecoregions of southeastern
Wisconsin. All sites were semi-permanently to permanently inundated and were palustrine
depressions with a mix of aquatic bed, emergent, and forested vegetation classes. A composite
chemical index (total N, total P, log Cl) was used as a human disturbance gradient. Standard IBI
statistical and graphical procedures used to evaluate and select metrics. Sites were grouped into
three disturbance classes (reference, urban, agricultural). Sampling consisted of eighteen 20-cm
x 50-cm quadrats (cf Daubenmire 1959) placed at equal distances along three transects arrayed
in a rough triangle in the area of macroinvertebrate sampling. Earlier plant IBI evaluated (Lillie
2000) developed with 104 wetlands of which only 36 were long-duration depressions.
Adopted Indicators and/or Metrics: Total taxa, Carex IV, Reed Canary Grass IV, Cattail IV,
Duckweed IV, Bluejoint Grass IV, "Good" species IV {Carex, Utricularia, Potamogeton,
Calamagrostis, Sagittaria, Polygonum, Equisetum), Pondweed IV, Percent floating-leaved.
51
------- |