1. Multimetric Concepts Index 101 Michael Paul; Jeroen Gerritsen Tetra Tech, Inc.

2. Taxonomic Data Environmental data Metric Exploration Select Responsive Metrics Develop Final Multmetric A priori and a posteriori site classification Multimetric Metric Data Reference and Degraded Site Designation Multimetric Concepts

3. 3 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Basic Steps Reference/Degraded Criteria Reference/Degraded Criteria Classification Classification Reducing variability Reducing variability Metric Exploration Metric Exploration Incorporating broad ecological information Incorporating broad ecological information Identifying discriminatory metrics Identifying discriminatory metrics Avoiding redundancy Avoiding redundancy Developing the “multi”-metric Developing the “multi”-metric Testing combinations of metrics Testing combinations of metrics

4. A medical metaphor Have you ever taken a “wellness” test? Have you ever taken a “wellness” test? They ask a lot of questions based on common “indicators” = “metrics” They ask a lot of questions based on common “indicators” = “metrics”

5. 5 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Reference/Degraded Criteria What is healthy? What is healthy? Need two groups for building models Need two groups for building models HEALTHY REFERENCE Non-smoker Low Stress Exercise 5d/week Healthy Diet UNHEALTHY DEGRADED 2 packs/day High Stress No exercise High Fat Diet

6. 6 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Classification The first few questions always deal with age, gender, etc. The first few questions always deal with age, gender, etc. Expectations differ for different groups. Expectations differ for different groups.

7. 7 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Metric Exploration One indicator doesn’t get it done… One indicator doesn’t get it done… Likely explored a lot of indicators Likely explored a lot of indicators Explored relationship of indicators to illness – developed those that were good at discriminating healthy from unhealthy folks. Explored relationship of indicators to illness – developed those that were good at discriminating healthy from unhealthy folks.

8. 8 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Developing a ‘multi’-metric Finally identified those indicators that consistently discriminated healthy individuals from unhealthy. Finally identified those indicators that consistently discriminated healthy individuals from unhealthy. Doctors now use an array of these to measure your “wellness” Doctors now use an array of these to measure your “wellness” Individual indicators used for diagnosing particular problem areas Individual indicators used for diagnosing particular problem areas

9. 9 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 How it works – reference criteria Reference/Degraded Criteria Reference/Degraded Criteria Reference sites are used to build classifications Reference sites are used to build classifications Reference and Degraded used to select metrics and test final index Reference and Degraded used to select metrics and test final index Abiotic variables are used Abiotic variables are used Likely need to test a few approaches Likely need to test a few approaches May need to stratify later May need to stratify later

10. 10 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Reference Sites The primary function of reference conditions is as a measurement standard The primary function of reference conditions is as a measurement standard To be useful, a measurement standard must account for natural variability To be useful, a measurement standard must account for natural variability undisturbed, natural undisturbed, natural best of available best of available representative of class representative of class

11. 11 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Reference and Degraded Criteria Reference sites (must meet all) Reference sites (must meet all) No discharges within prescribed distance No discharges within prescribed distance Better than state water quality standards Better than state water quality standards Land use: no direct disturbances Land use: no direct disturbances Habitat typical for region; good riparian zone Habitat typical for region; good riparian zone Stressed sites (meets one or more) Stressed sites (meets one or more) Fails water quality or sediment standards Fails water quality or sediment standards Severe habitat impairment Severe habitat impairment Severe nonpoint sources; erosion Severe nonpoint sources; erosion

12. 12 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Maryland Reference Criteria (must meet all) pH  6.0 pH  6.0 ANC  50  eq/l ANC  50  eq/l dissolved oxygen  4.0 ppm dissolved oxygen  4.0 ppm Nitrate-N  4.2 mg/l Nitrate-N  4.2 mg/l Urban land use  20% of catchment Urban land use  20% of catchment Forested land cover  25% of catchment Forested land cover  25% of catchment Remoteness rating “optimal” or suboptimal” Remoteness rating “optimal” or suboptimal” Aesthetics rating “optimal” or “suboptimal” Aesthetics rating “optimal” or “suboptimal” Instream habitat rating “optimal” or “suboptimal” Instream habitat rating “optimal” or “suboptimal” Riparian buffer width  15m Riparian buffer width  15m No channelization No channelization No point source discharges No point source discharges

13. 13 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Maryland Stressed Criteria (meets any one) pH  5.0 and ANC  0  eq/l pH  5.0 and ANC  0  eq/l dissolved oxygen  2.0 ppm dissolved oxygen  2.0 ppm Nitrate-N  7.0 mg/l and DO  2.0 ppm Nitrate-N  7.0 mg/l and DO  2.0 ppm Urban land use > 50% of catchment area and instream habitat rating “poor” Urban land use > 50% of catchment area and instream habitat rating “poor” Instream habitat rating “poor” and bank stability rating “poor” Instream habitat rating “poor” and bank stability rating “poor” Channel alteration rating “poor” and instream habitat rating “poor” Channel alteration rating “poor” and instream habitat rating “poor”

14. 14 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Classification Classification Classification Comparing like to like Comparing like to like Way of apportioning variability Way of apportioning variability Models calibrated to each “class” Models calibrated to each “class” A priori - existing A priori - existing A posteriori – derive from your data A posteriori – derive from your data

15. 15 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 A priori classification Ecoregions Ecoregions Physiographic provinces Physiographic provinces

16. 16 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 A posteriori classification Physical and Chemical Data Ordination Cluster Analysis Etc. Classes or Groups Highlands Piedmont Plains

17. 17 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Confirmation Univariate tests Univariate tests MANOVA MANOVA Other Ordination Other Ordination Similarity analysis Similarity analysis

18. 18 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Metric Exploration Incorporating broad ecological information Incorporating broad ecological information Identifying discriminatory metrics Identifying discriminatory metrics Avoiding redundancy Avoiding redundancy

19. Metric Exploration SYSTEM PROCESSES IDENTITY TOLERANCE RARE OR ENDANGERED KEY TAXA TAXONOMIC COMPOSITION TROPHIC DYNAMICS PRODUCTIVITY MATERIAL: CYCLES PREDATION RECRUITMENT TAXA RICHNESS RELATIVE ABUNDANCE DOMINANCE COMMUNITY STRUCTURE FEEDING GROUPS HABIT VOLTINISM INDIVIDUAL CONDITION DISEASE ANOMALIES CONTAMINANT LEVELS DEATH METABOLIC RATE TOXICITY TESTS RIVPACS INVERTEBRATE IBI FISH IBI INTEGRATED BIOASSESSMENT LIFE HISTORY ATTRIBUTES

20. 20 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Ideal Multimetric Composite Multiple organizational levels Multiple organizational levels Addresses structure and function Addresses structure and function Broad sensitivity Broad sensitivity Broad range of habitats, niches Broad range of habitats, niches Metric characteristics Metric characteristics Responsive to stressors Responsive to stressors Low natural variability Low natural variability Interpretable (understanding of ecology) Interpretable (understanding of ecology) Cost-effective to measure Cost-effective to measure

21. Different responsiveness Biological Condition Total taxa Stonefly taxa Caddisfly taxa Mayfly taxa Intolerant taxa % tolerants % midges % clingers % EPT % morph. deformities Total abundance LOWHIGH

22. Testing metrics – reference vs degraded approach Strong Weak Metric Responses Discrimination Efficiency = percent degraded < 25 th percentile reference DE=85% % sensitive individuals -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 DegradedReference

23. 23 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Testing metrics – gradient approach Stressor Gradient Metric Value

24. 24 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Avoid redundancy Avoid metrics that are components of others Avoid metrics that are components of others E.g. % EPT and % Ephemeroptera E.g. % EPT and % Ephemeroptera Correlation analysis – avoid highly correlated metrics in same multimetric Correlation analysis – avoid highly correlated metrics in same multimetric r>0.7 is a good start r>0.7 is a good start

25. 25 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Delete Metrics Obscure ecological meaning Obscure ecological meaning Weak response to stressors Weak response to stressors Limited ecosystem relevance Limited ecosystem relevance Redundancy to other metrics Redundancy to other metrics

26. 26 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Metric Standardization

27. 27 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Metric Standardization Watershed Area Metric Value 5 3 1

28. 28 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Assembling Metrics Use sum or average of standard scores of metrics to get final multimetric score Use sum or average of standard scores of metrics to get final multimetric score Test several combinations for overall discrimination efficiency Test several combinations for overall discrimination efficiency

29. 29 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Assembling multimetrics MetricModel 1Model 2Model 3 Ephemeroptera taxaXXX Plecoptera TaxaXX Trichoptera TaxaXX Insect taxaX Non-insect taxaX % EphemeropteraX % Ephemeroptera less BaetidX % Trichoptera Less HydropsycheXX %OligochaetaX % scrapersXXX BCI CTQAXX HBIXX % 5 dominantXX

30. 30 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Compare Discrimination Efficiencies RefDeg Index Value RefDeg RefDeg Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 DE = 80%74%98%

31. 31 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Different classes may have different indexes Non-Coastal Plain metrics Non-Coastal Plain metrics Total taxa Total taxa EPT taxa EPT taxa % mayflies % mayflies % Tanytarsini % Tanytarsini Ephemeroptera taxa Ephemeroptera taxa Diptera taxa Diptera taxa Intolerant taxa Intolerant taxa % tolerant individuals % tolerant individuals % collectors % collectors Coastal Plain metrics Coastal Plain metrics Total taxa Total taxa EPT taxa EPT taxa % mayflies % mayflies % Tanytarsini % Tanytarsini Beck’s Biotic Index Beck’s Biotic Index Scraper taxa Scraper taxa % clingers % clingers

32. 32 March 31 – April 4, 2003National Biological Assessment and Criteria Workshop, INDEX 101_03 Always test any model Use an independent dataset with reference and degraded sites Use an independent dataset with reference and degraded sites Same year set aside Same year set aside Newly collected data Newly collected data Test discrimination efficiency Test discrimination efficiency Should match model building DE Should match model building DE No strict rule No strict rule

33. To Review... Taxonomic Data Environmental data Metric Exploration Select Responsive Metrics Develop Final Multmetric Site Classification: a priori and a posteriori Multimetric Metric Data Reference and Degraded Site Designation