Indicators For Monitoring Diversity
Indicators For Monitoring Diversity
Indicators For Monitoring Diversity
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Society for Conservation Biology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Conservation Biology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Essay
A Hierarchical Approach
REED F. NOSS*
Abstract: Biodiversity is presently a minor consideration in Resumen: La biodiversidad es basta abora una consid-
environmentalpolicy. It has been regarded as too broad and eracion menor en lapolitica ambiental. Se ha visto como un
vague a concept to be applied to real-world regulatory and concepto demasiado amplio y vago para ser aplicado en las
managementproblems. This problem can be corrected if bio- regulaciones y el maneyo de los problemas del mundo real.
diversity is recognized as an end in itself and if measurable Este problema se puede corregir si la biodiversidad es re-
indicators can be selected to assess the status of biodiversity conocida como un fin por si misma y si se pueden seleccio-
over time. Biodiversity, as presently understood, encom- nar indicadores cuantificables para determinar el estado de
passes multiple levels of biological organization. In tbis pa- la biodiversidad a trave's del tiempo. La biodiversidad, como
per, I expand the three primary attributes of biodiversity se entiende actualmente comprende muiltiples niveles de or-
recognized by Jerry Franklin - composition, structure, and ganizacion biologica En esta disertacion, extiendo los tres
function - into a nested hierarchy that incorporates ele- atributos primarios de la biodiversidad reconocidos por
ments of each attribute at four levels of organization: re- Jerry Franklin - composicion, estructura y funcion -
gional landscape, community-ecosystem, population- dentro de unajerarquia que encaja a incorpora los elemen-
species, and genetic. Indicators of each attribute in terrestrial tos de cada uno de los atributos en cuatro niveles de orga-
ecosystems, at the four levels of organization, are identified nizacion: paisaje regional, ecosistemas de las comunidades,
for environmental monitoring purposes. Projects to monitor poblacion de especies y gene'tica Los indicadores de cada
biodiversity will benefit from a direct linkage to long-term atributo en los ecosistemas terrestres, en los cuatro niveles de
ecological research and a commitment to test hypotheses organizacion, son identificados para propositos de moni-
relevant to biodiversity conservation. A general guideline is toreo ambiental. Los proyectos para el monitoreo de la bio-
to proceed from the top down, beginning with a coarse-scale diversidad se beneficiarian de una union directa con la in-
inventory of landscape pattern, vegetation, habitat structure, vestigacion ecol6gica a largo plazo y de un compromiso
and species distributions, then overlaying data on stress lev- para probar bipotesis relevantes a la conservacion de la bio-
els to identify biologically significant areas at high risk of diversidad. Un lineamiento general es proceder de arriba
impoverishment Intensive research and monitoring can be para abajo, empezando con una escala-burda de inventario
directed to high-risk ecosystems and elements of biodiversity, de lospatrones delpaisaje, de la vegetacion, de la estructura
while less intensive monitoring is directed to the total land- del bacbitaty de la distribucion de ls especies, despue's super-
scape (or samples thereof). In any monitoring program, par- poner los datos sobre niveles de presion para identificar las
ticular attention should be paid to specifying the questions areas da alto riezgo y de empobrecimiento. La investigacion
that monitoring is intended to answer and validating the intensivay el monitorio peude ser dirigido a los ecosistemas
relationships between indicators and the components of bio- de alto riezgoy a los elementos de la biodiversidad, mientras
diversity they represent que un monitoreo me'nos intenso sepuede dirigir al total del
* Current address is 925 N W 31st Street, Corvallis, OR 47330 componentes de la biodiversidad que representen.
355
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 Indicators for Biodiversity Noss
Introduction
the list of species in some taxon or group of taxa. A purposes. Ecologists usually define "diversity" in a way
geneticist may consider allelic diversity and heterozy- that takes into consideration the relative frequency or
gosity to be the most important expressions of biodi- abundance of each species or other entity, in addition to
biodiversity may mean interspersing habitats to maxi- abundances (e.g., Shannon & Weaver 1949; Simpson
mize edge effects, thereby building populations of pop- 1949). Unfortunately, the number of indices and inter-
that biodiversity is just another "smokescreen" or envi- sity was in danger of becoming a "nonconcept" (Hurl-
wonder agencies are having difficulty defining and im- species identity), are heavily dependent on sample size,
policy-makers, scientists, and public user groups alike. community. As Pielou (1975:165) noted, "a communi-
Conservation biologists now recognize the biodiver- ty's diversity index is merely a single descriptive statis-
sity issue as involving more than just species diversity or tic, only one of the many needed to summarize its char-
endangered species. The issue is grounded in a concern acteristics, and by itself, not very informative." Despite
heightened interest in biodiversity presents an oppor- tions based on quantitative criteria, even though quali-
tunity to address environmental problems holistically, tative changes in community structure are often the
by-species, stress-by-stress fashion. One way to escape landscape is fragmented, for example, overall commu-
sity for use in environmental inventory, monitoring, and with an invasion of weedy species and the loss of species
assessment programs. The purpose of this paper is to unable to persist in small, isolated patches of habitat
diveristy can be inventoried and monitored over time. I nas. As a biogeographical region progressively loses its
emphasize terrestrial systems, but many of the guide- character, global biodiversity is diminished (Mooney
1987). The OTA document described diversity at three identifies the major components at several levels of or-
biotic, they are crucial to maintaining biodiversity. to do with the identity and variety of elements in a
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Noss Indicators for Biodiversity 357
pattern of patches and other elements at a landscape abundances) of interest to conservationists, and the
scale. Function involves ecological and evolutionary mechanistic basis for many higher-order patterns.
concern over compositional diversity has not been ac- tiple spatial and temporal scales. No single level of or-
companied by an adequate awareness of structural and ganization (e.g., gene, population, community) is funda-
ecosystems and disruption of fundamental ecological for different questions. Big questions require answers
processes may not be fully appreciated. Here, I elabo- from several scales. If we are interested in the effects of
nested hierarchy (Fig. 1). Because the compositional, want to consider (1) the climatic factors controlling
pendent, the three spheres are interconnected and ness across continents; (2) the availability of suitable
bounded by a larger sphere of concern (i.e., Earth). habitats and landscape linkages for species migration;
Hierarchy theory suggests that higher levels of orga- (3) the climatic controls on regional and local distur-
lower levels (Allen & Starr 1982; O'Neill et al. 1986). If logical requirements, and dispersal capacities of individ-
balls inside it will roll downhill, also. Hence, global within and between populations of a species in response
problems such as greenhouse warming and strato- to climatic variables. "Big picture" research on global
spheric ozone depletion impose fundamental con- phenomena is complemented by intensive studies of the
straints on efforts to preserve particular natural areas or life histories of organisms in local environments.
endangered species. The importance of higher-order Another value of the hierarchy concept for assessing
constraints should not suggest that monitoring and as- biodiversity is the recognition that effects of environ-
\~~~~~~~~- 0
genetic
processes
(Scholz 1981). If a declining tree species is replaced by
demogrophic
interspecific
biodiversity could be dramatic as the system shifts
\ \ I~~~~~~~~nteract,ons, //
landscope processes
\ \ ~~~~~and disturbances, //
FUCINAL
Why Indicators?
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 Indicators for Biodiversity Noss
relatively independent of sample size; (5) easy and cost- itself, rather than as an index of air quality, water quality,
effective to measure, collect, assay, and/or calculate; (6) or some other anthropocentric measure of environmen-
able to differentiate between natural cycles or trends tal health. (2) Selection of indicators depends on for-
and those induced by anthropogenic stress; and (7) rel- mulating specific questions relevant to management or
evant to ecologically significant phenomena (Cook policy that are to be answered through the monitoring
1976; Sheehan 1984; Munn 1988). Because no single process. (3) Indicators for the level of organization one
indicator will possess all of these desirable properties, a wishes to monitor can be selected from levels at, above,
set of complementary indicators is required. or below that level. Thus, if one is monitoring a popu-
The use of indicator species to monitor or assess en- lation, indicators might be selected from the landscape
vironmental conditions is a firmly established tradition level (e.g., habitat corridors that are necessary to allow
in ecology, environmental toxicology, pollution control, dispersal), the population level (e.g., population size,
agriculture, forestry, and wildlife and range manage- fecundity, survivorship, age and sex ratios), the level of
ment (Thomas 1972; Ott 1978; Cairns et al. 1979). But individuals (e.g., physiological parameters), and the ge-
this tradition has encountered many conceptual and netic level (e.g., heterozygosity). (4) The indicators in
procedural problems. In toxicity testing, for example, Table 1 are general categories, most of which cut across
the usual assumption that responses at higher levels of ecosystem types. In application, many indicators will be
biological organization can be predicted by single- specific to ecosystems. Coarse woody debris, for exam-
species toxicity tests is not supportable (Cairns 1983). ple, is a structural element critical to biodiversity in
Landres et al. (1988) pointed out a number of difficul- many old-growth forests, such as in the Pacific North-
ties with using indicator species to assess population west (Franklin et al. 1981), but may not be important in
trends of other species and to evaluate overall wildlife more open-structured habitats, including forest types
habitat quality, and noted that the ecological criteria subject to frequent fire.
ble.
Regional Landscape
indicator species are valid. Indicator species often have The term "regional landscape" (Noss 1983) emphasizes
told us little about overall environmental trends, and the spatial complexity of regions. "Landscape" refers to
may even have deluded us into thinking that all is well "a mosaic of heterogeneous land forms, vegetation
with an environment simply because an indicator is types, and land uses" (Urban et al. 1987). The spatial
thriving. These criticisms apply, however, to a much scale of a regional landscape might vary from the size of
more restricted application of the indicator concept a national forest or park and its surroundings up to the
than is suggested here. The final recommendation of size of a physiographic region or biogeographic prov-
comprehensive strategy of risk analysis that focuses on The relevance of landscape structure to biodiversity
key habitats (including corridors, mosaics, and other is now well accepted, thanks to the voluminous litera-
landscape structures) as well as species. Such a strategy ture on habitat fragmentation (e.g., Burgess & Sharpe
might include monitoring indicators of compositional, 1981; Harris 1984; Wilcove et al. 1986). Landscape fea-
structural, and functional biodiversity at multiple levels tures such as patch size, heterogeneity, perimeter-area
Table 1 is a compilation of terrestrial biodiversity indi- identity and proportions of particular habitats) are also
cators and inventory and monitoring tools, arranged in a critical. The "functional combination" of habitats in the
four-level hierarchy. As with most categorizations, some landscape mosaic is vital to animals that utilize multiple
boxes in Table 1 overlap, and distinctions are somewhat habitat types and includes ecotones and species assem-
arbitrary. The table may be useful as a framework for blages that change gradually along environmental gradi-
selecting indicators for a biodiversity monitoring proj- ents; such gradient-associated assemblages are often
ect, or more immediately, as a checklist of biodiversity rich in species but are not considered in conventional
attributes to consider in preparing or reviewing envi- vegetation analysis and community-level conservation
Four points about choosing indicators deserve em- The indicators listed for the regional landscape level
phasis. (1) The question "What are we monitoring or in Table 1 are drawn mostly from the literature of land-
assessing, and why?" is fundamental to selecting appro- scape ecology and disturbance ecology. General refer-
priate indicators. I assume that the purpose is to assess ences include Risser et al. (1984), Pickett and White
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Noss Indicators for Biodiversity 359
Table 1. Indicator variables for inventorying, monitoring, and assessing terrestrial biodiversity at four levels of organization, including
compositional, structural, and functional components; includes a sampling of inventory and monitoring tools and techniques.
Indicators
Inventory and
Regional Identity, distribution, Heterogeneity; connectivity; Disturbance processes (areal Aerial photographs (satellite
Landscape richness, and proportions spatial linkage; patchiness; extent, frequency or and conventional aircraft)
of patch (habitat) types porosity; contrast; grain return interval, rotation and other remote sensing
of species distributions juxtaposition; patch size seasonality); nutrient technology; time series
(richness, endemism) frequency distribution; cycling rates; energy flow analysis; spatial statistics;
dimension)
Community- Identity, relative abundance, Substrate and soil variables; Biomass and resource Aerial photographs and
Ecosystem frequency, richness, slope and aspect; productivity; herbivory, other remote sensing data;
evenness, and diversity of vegetation biomass and parasitism, and predation ground-level photo
species and guilds; physiognomy; foliage rates; colonization and stations; time series
proportions of endemic, density and layering; local extinction rates; analysis; physical habitat
exotic, threatened, and horizontal patchiness; patch dynamics (fine-scale measures and resource
endangered species; canopy openness and gap disturbance processes), inventories; habitat
curves; life-form density, and distribution human intrusion rates and multispecies);
integrity)
Species abundance; frequency; (microdistribution); range (fertility, recruitment rate, counts, captures, signs,
value; biomass; density population structure (sex metapopulation dynamics; sensing; habitat suitability
adaptation
Genetic Allelic diversity; presence of Census and effective Inbreeding depression; Electrophoresis; karyotypic
particular rare alleles, population size; outbreeding rate; rate of analysis; DNA sequencing;
generation overlap;
heritability
Monitoring the positions of ecotones at various spatial geochemical, hydrologic, and energy flows. For certain
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 Indicators for Biodiversity Noss
measure as simple as fire frequency and seasonality may cling rates) that may be appropriate to monitor for spe-
son, hardwood trees and shrubs invade, floristic diver- the community-ecosystem level of organization are
sity may decline, and key species may be eliminated nearly as diverse as the taxa and systems of concern.
cators (both structural and functional: e.g., deforestation Dombois & Ellenberg 1974) contain much information
rate, road density, fragmentation or edge index, grazing on community-level sampling methodology. A tremen-
and agricultural intensity, rate of housing development) dous literature exists on bird census techniques, the
and the protection status of managed lands may be the most complete single reference being Ralph and Scott
most critical variables for tracking the status of biodi- (1981). Bird community data can be readily applied
In addition to strictly landscape-level variables, col- 1976). Long-term bird surveys across the United States,
lective properties of species distributions can be inven- such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Breeding Bird
toried at the regional landscape scale. Terborgh and Survey (BBS) program (Robbins et al. 1986), are used to
Winter (1983), for example, mapped the distribution of monitor temporal trends in species populations, but
endemic land birds in Columbia and Ecuador and iden- could be interpreted to monitor guilds or the entire
tified areas of maximum geographic overlap where pro- avian community of a defined area. Small mammal, rep-
tection efforts should be directed. Scott et al. (1990) tile, and amphibian monitoring are discussed in several
developed a methodology to identify centers of species papers in Szaro et al. (1988). Useful summaries of wild-
richness and endemism, and vegetative diversity, at a life habitat inventory and monitoring are in Thomas
scale of 1:100,000 to 1:500,000, and to identify gaps in (1979), Verner et al. (1986), and Cooperrider et al.
the distribution of protected areas. In most cases, re- (1986). Karr's index of biotic integrity (IBI; Karr et al.
peating extensive inventories of species distributions 1986), which collapses data on community composition
would be impractical for monitoring purposes. Periodic into a quantitative measure, has been applied with suc-
inventories of vegetation from remove sensing, how- cess to aquatic communities, and terrestrial applications
ever, can effectively monitor the availability of habitats are possible (J. R. Karr, personal communication).
Population-Species
Community-Ecosystem
A community comprises the populations of some or all (populations of a species connected by dispersal), or a
species coexisting at a site. The term "ecosystem" in- single, disjunct population. The population-species level
cludes abiotic aspects of the environment with which is where most biodiversity monitoring has been fo-
the biotic community is interdependent. In contrast to cused. Although the indicator species approach has
the higher level of regional landscape, the community- been criticized for its questionable assumptions, meth-
ecosystem level is relatively homogenous when viewed, odological deficiencies, and sometimes biased applica-
say, at the scale of a conventional aerial photograph. tion, single species will continue to be important foci of
than on remote sensing (although the latter is still useful easy to study than communities, landscapes, or genes;
for some habitat components). (2) laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Indicator variables for the community-ecosystem mandate attention to species but not to other levels of
level (Table 1) include many from community ecology, organization (except that the ESA is supposed to "pro-
such as species richness and diversity, dominance- vide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which en-
diversity curves, life-form and guild proportions, and dangered species and threatened species depend may
clude many of the habitat variables measured in ecology Noss (1990) lists five categories of species that may
and wildlife biology. Ideally, both biotic and habitat in- warrant special conservation effort, including intensive
dicators should be measured at the community-eco- monitoring (1) ecological indicators: species that signal
system and population-species levels of organization the effects of perturbations on a number of other spe-
(Schamberger 1988). The functional indicators in Table cies with similar habitat requirements; (2) keystones:
1 include biotic variables from community ecology pivotal species upon which the diversity of a large part
(e.g., predation rates) and biotic-abiotic variables from of a community depends; (3) umbrellas: species with
ecosystem ecology (e.g., disturbance and nutrient cy- large area requirements, which if given sufficient pro-
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Noss Indicators for Biodiversity 361
tected habitat area, will bring many other species under at the genetic level usually is restricted to zoo popula-
protection; (4) flagships: popular, charismatic species tions of rare species, or species of commercial impor-
that serve as symbols and rallying points for major con- tance such as certain trees. Lande and Barrowclough
servation initiatives; and (5) vulnerables: species that (1987) discussed techniques available to directly mea-
are rare, genetically impoverished, of low fecundity, de- sure and monitor genetic variation, and much of the
pendent on patchy or unpredictable resources, ex- genetic portion of Table 1 is adapted from their paper.
tremely variable in population density, persecuted, or Although some indices of morphological variability may
otherwise prone to extinction in human-dominated be good indicators of genetic stress (Leary & Allendorf
landscapes (see Terborgh & Winter -1980; Karr 1982; 1989), variation in morphology can be confounded by
Soule 1983, 1987; Pimm et al. 1988; Simberloff 1988). phenotypic effects. Electrophoresis of tissue samples is
Not all of these categories need to be monitored in any the preferred technique for monitoring heterozygosity
given case. It may be that adequate attention to catego- and enzyme variability (allozymes), probably the most
ries 2-5 would obviate the need to identify and monitor common measures of genetic variation. Heritability
putative ecological indicator species (D. S. Wilcove, per- studies (e.g., offspring-parent regression, sib analysis)
For species at risk, intensive monitoring may be di- for quantitative traits. Chromosomal polymorphisms
rected at multiple population-level indicators, as well as can be monitored by karyotypic analysis, and the use of
appropriate indicators at other levels - the genetic restriction endonucleases to cut DNA allows direct as-
level, for example (Table 1). Measurements of morpho- sessment of genetic variation (Mlot 1989). The severity
logical characters are often useful. The regression of of inbreeding depression can be evaluated from pedi-
weight on size for amphibians and reptiles, for instance, grees (which, however, are seldom available for wild
that include information from several morphological Monitoring has not been a glamorous activity in science,
characters are particularly useful (Leary & Allendorf in part because it has been perceived as blind data-
1989). Growth indicators (e.g., tree dbh) and reproduc- gathering (which, in some cases, it has been). The kinds
tive output (e.g., number of fruits, germination rates) of questions that a scientist asks when initiating a re-
are common monitoring targets for plants. search project - about causes and effects, probabilities,
Often, monitoring at the population-species level is interactions, and alternative hypotheses - are not com-
directed not at the population itself, but at habitat vari- monly asked by workers initiating a monitoring project.
ables determined or assumed to be important to the In most agencies, monitoring and research projects are
species. Habitat suitability indicators can be monitored uncoordinated and are carried out by separate branches.
by a variety of techniques, including remote sensing of Explicit hypothesis-testing only rarely has been a part of
cover types required by a species (Cooperrider et al. monitoring studies, hence the insufficient concern for
1986). It has sometimes been assumed that monitoring experimental design and statistical analysis (Hinds
habitat variables obviates the need to monitor popula- 1984). Perhaps monitoring will be most successful
tions; however the presence of suitable habitat is no when it is perceived (and actually qualifies) as scientific
guarantee that the species of interest is present. Popu- research and is designed to test specific hypotheses that
lations may vary tremendously in density due to biotic are relevant to policy and management questions. In this
factors, while habitat carrying capacity remains roughly context, monitoring is a necessary link in the "adaptive
constant (Schamberger 1988). Conversely, inferences management" cycle that continuously refines regula-
based solely on biotic variables such as population den- tions or management practices on the basis of data de-
sity can be misleading. Among vertebrates, for example, rived from monitoring and analyzed with an emphasis
occur in areas of marginal habitat (Van Horne 1983). As an illustration of how a biodiversity monitoring
Monitoring both habitat and population variables seems project might be implemented, imagine that a hypothet-
to be essential in most cases. ical agency wants to assess status and trends in biolog-
Genetic
In wild populations, demography is usually of more im- goals and objectives, and the "sub-end points" of bio-
mediate significance to population viability than is pop- diversity that the agency wishes to assess (and main-
ulation genetics (Lande 1988). Due to cost, monitoring tain). This is more a matter of policy-making than of
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 Indicators for Biodiversity Noss
own.
3. Establish "baseline" conditions. From current
Acknowledgments
mented.
script.
Illinois.
York.
ignated Wilderness and Research Natural Areas) and ar-
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Noss Indicators for Biodiversity 363
ment - certain case studies and related quantitative issues. Landres, P. B., J. Verner, and J. W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological
International Co-operative Publishing House, Fairland, Mary- uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conservation
217.
tions using birds and their habitats. Biological Notes No. 97,
consin.
5(5):1-8.
586.
press).
10:299-309.
ters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey
Lande, R., and G. F. Barrowclough. 1987. Effective population O'Neill, R V., D. L DeAngelis, J. B. Waide, and T. F. H. llen.
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364 Indicators for Biodiversity Noss
Florida.
New York.
Lawrence, Kansas.
ing Bird Survey: its first fifteen years, 1965-1979. USDI Fish
5:303-313.
Conservation Biology
This content downloaded from 137.111.226.20 on Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:29:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions