The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program’s
Species Pyramid
August 30, 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report describes the pyramid framework developed by the ABMP to communicate
the state of species to decision-makers and the public. Developed over a period of 4
years, this framework is a result of the cooperative efforts of the ABMP’s Index
Development Team. Composed of Erin Bayne, Stan Boutin, Diane Haughland, Jim
Herbers, Scott Nielsen, Jim Schieck and, most recently, Lisa Mahon the development
team has been directly supported by an NSERC Collaborative Research and
Development (CRD) Grant and an Alberta Science and Research Authority Enabling
Research and Technology Transfer Grant. Additional contributors to this framework
include the ABMP’s Secretariat Working Group, the ABMP’s Science Committee, and
the many stakeholders who have provided feedback at workshops and meetings.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
The ABMP’s communication framework is under ongoing development and will
continue to be under development until 2010. As a result, the information provided in this
report may become dated. For an update on the most current status of the species
pyramid, please contact the ABMP directly.
This report is not a stand alone document. In particular, the ABMP has produced an
Index Manual that provides the statistical rationale and methodology necessary to
aggregated data within the species pyramid framework.
PUBLICATION DETAILS
This publication was made possible, in part, by donations from more than 30 government,
industry, and non-governmental stakeholder organizations in Alberta. A detailed list of
the ABMP’s sponsoring organizations can be found at our website
(http://www.abmp.arc.ab.ca).
Citation: ABMP’s Index Development Group. 2006. The Alberta Biodiversity
Monitoring Program’s Species Pyramid. The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program,
Alberta, Canada. Report available at: http://www.abmp.arc.ab.ca [Date Cited].
A copy of this and other ABMP reports is available from http://www.abmp.arc.ab.ca or
from the ABMP c/o Alberta Research Council, Bag 4000, Vegreville, AB, T9C 1T4.
This report may be reproduced for educational or other non-commercial purposes
provided that appropriate acknowledgements are provided. However, reproduction of this
report for commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the
ABMP.
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
2. Background and Scope ................................................................................................. 5
3. Information Pyramid Principles.................................................................................. 6
4. General Overview of the ABMP Species Pyramid..................................................... 6
4.1 Context ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Species Pyramid Framework ................................................................................. 7
4.3 The Six Levels of the ABMP’s Species Pyramid .................................................. 7
4.4 Infrastructure for the ABMP Species Pyramid ................................................... 8
4.4.1 Variables ............................................................................................................ 8
4.4.2. Reference Conditions ........................................................................................ 9
4.4.3 Algorithms ........................................................................................................ 10
4.4.4 Identifying Species Indicator Groups .............................................................. 10
4.4.5 Guild Development .......................................................................................... 10
5. Species Pyramid – Details About the ABMP’s Methodology ................................. 11
5.1 Level 6 .................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Level 5 .................................................................................................................... 11
5.2.1 Taxonomic Groups Examined using Terrestrial Protocols ............................. 12
5.2.2 Taxonomic Groups Examined using Aquatic Protocols .................................. 12
5.3 Level 4 .................................................................................................................... 13
5.3.1 Broad Terrestrial Guilds.................................................................................. 13
5.3.1 Broad Aquatic Guilds ...................................................................................... 14
5.4 Level 3 .................................................................................................................... 14
5.4.1 Mammals (Mammailia).................................................................................... 15
5.4.2 Birds (Aves)...................................................................................................... 16
5.4.3 Vascular Plants (Magnoliopsida, Liliopsida, Pinopsida, Filicopsida,
Equisetopsida, and Lycopodiopsida) .............................................................. 17
5.4.4 Lichens (Ascomycetes) .................................................................................... 18
5.4.5 Bryophytes (Mosses - Bryopsida, Sphagnopsida, Hepatopsida) ...................... 18
5.4.6 Polyporous Fungi (Basidiomycetes)................................................................ 19
5.4.7 Springtails (Entognatha) .................................................................................. 19
3
5.4.8 Mites (Arachnida) ............................................................................................ 20
5.4.9 Fish (Osteichthyes – Rivers & Lakes).............................................................. 20
5.4.10 Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Insecta, Arachnida, Branchiopoda,
Maxillopoda, Ostracoda – Streams & Rivers) ................................................ 21
5.4.11 Diatoms (Bacillariophyceae, Coscinodiscophyceae, Fragilariophyceae –
Streams & Rivers) ........................................................................................... 22
5.4.12 Water Column Macroinvertebrates (Insecta, Arachnida, Malacostraca,
Maxillopoda, Gastropoda, Ostracoda, Branchiopoda - Wetlands) ................. 23
5.4.13 Phytoplankton (Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Cryptophyceae - Lakes). ... 23
5.4.14 Zooplankton (Eurotatoria, Maxillopoda, Branchiopoda – Lakes) ................. 24
5.5 Level 2 .................................................................................................................... 25
5.6 Level 1 .................................................................................................................... 25
Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 27
APPENDIX 1 – Resources Used To Develop ABMP Guilds. ..................................... 28
APPENDIX 2 – Taxonomic Breadth in the ABMP ..................................................... 34
4
1. Introduction
The successful communication of ecological knowledge to decision-makers requires
that that the knowledge is presented in a way that supports the decision-making process
(Norton 1998). Information Pyramids have been offered as a framework for aggregating
and simplifying ecological knowledge to meet the needs of resource managers and policy
makers (Overton et al. 2002). Conceptually, Information Pyramids are appealing because
they support the integration of diverse forms of biotic and abiotic data into synthesized,
transparent and repeatable messages. Pyramids also have high intuitive appeal to both
ecologists and decision-makers because they make it easy to communicate and
understand the type of data available, how it is organized, and how it is being combined.
Despite these advantages, however, quantitative methods to support the Information
Pyramid Paradigm remain undeveloped.
Using Information Pyramids as a conceptual framework, the Alberta Biodiversity
Monitoring Program (ABMP) has developed an innovative multimetric approach for
aggregating and communicating ecological data to decision-makers. Designed to support
the needs of managers and policy-makers in the field of sustainable resource
management, this approach is scaleable from local to provincial scales and can be applied
to multiple levels biotic and abiotic information. Specifically, we build upon the
Information Pyramid paradigm by:
1. expanding on the principles used for aggregating/disaggregating ecological data,
and
2. using Information Pyramids as a framework to support the development of a new
multimetric index for communicating the state of terrestrial and aquatic species.
2. Background and Scope
Information Pyramids are a scalable indicator framework that can be used to organize
diverse forms of ecological and environmental knowledge, and to easily communicate
this organizational structure to decision-makers (Overton et al. 2002). They are used to
standardize, quantify, and combine complex information on ecosystem quantity,
ecosystem quality, and environmental stressors. Importantly, their application is not tied
to a particular spatial scale or level of biological organization. As a result, they support
the development of communication tools with applications ranging from site-specific
management to provincial and national policy development. Thus, they can be used to
help: fulfill national, provincial, and regional biodiversity reporting commitments; assess
the effectiveness of management and policy decisions; and predict the future relationship
between biodiversity and human activity. Despite their broad application potential,
however, the use of Information Pyramids is limited by the availability of appropriate
data and statistical methodology.
The ABMP used the Information Pyramid paradigm to develop a Species Pyramid.
The Species Pyramid, and the supporting statistical methods, were specifically designed
to organize and aggregate biodiversity data collected by the ABMP. Further, the Pyramid
was designed to meet the management needs of the ABMP’s primary stakeholders. As a
result, the Species Pyramid presented here was designed to support natural resource
decision-making at larger spatial scales (e.g., >0.5 million ha) using the species data
collected by the ABMP. The application of the material described in this report may be
5
appropriate at finer spatial scales or using alternative data sources but these alternate uses
need to be verified.
The scope of this report is limited to describing the ABMP’s overall aggregation
framework. The statistical methods used to aggregate data within the Species Pyramid are
available in other ABMP reports. The statistical reports will be appropriately cited
throughout the text and citations are freely available at the ABMP’s web site.
3. Information Pyramid Principles
Overton et al. (2002) originally outlined four central principals to guide the
aggregation and disaggregation of knowledge using Information Pyramids:
1. higher levels of information are entirely derived from an underlying foundation of
primary data,
2. the processes of generalization and integration upward, and disaggregation
downward must be scientifically rigorous and assumptions explicit (i.e., there
should be complete access to the statistical methods, the data, and the assumptions
that were used to conduct the aggregation),
3. information tools that are developed for different purposes often share common data
and data aggregation methodologies, and
4. communication tools arising from Information Pyramids will benefit from the
simultaneous development of all levels in the pyramid.
To these we add:
5. data used in information pyramids must be scientifically sound,
6. communication tools arising from Information Pyramids must be easily
interpretable and meet the specific needs of decision makers,
7. aggregation methods must be robust to minor inconsistencies in data quality and
quantity, and
8. communication tools arising from Information Pyramids should provide causal or
correlative insight between change in biodiversity and environmental stressors;
Decision-makers depend on causal or correlative relationships for making informed
decisions.
Following these principles ensures that the Species Pyramid will be credible and relevant,
and, thus, resulting knowledge will be more likely incorporated into decision-making
processes.
4. General Overview of the ABMP Species Pyramid
4.1 Context
The ABMP collects and distributes a large amount of primary data on species.
Building on the value of this data, the ABMP’s Species Pyramid framework is primarily
designed to support the information needs of government and industry. However, we
recognize that our Species Pyramid is only one way to capitalize on the value that is
inherent in the primary data. The program will not explore all possible uses of the
6
primary data and when users find the Species Pyramid constraining, we expect that they
will obtain the primary data and conduct independent, custom analyses.
4.2 Species Pyramid Framework
We applied the Information Pyramid paradigm to the development of a Biodiversity
Index (Nielsen et al. 2006) designed to aggregate and communicate species data. The
Species Pyramid described in this report was principally designed to communicate the
state of species to politicians, policy makers, managers, and the public (Figure 1).
Primary Audience
Single Level 6
Index
Taxonomic
Indices
• Politicians
• Policy Makers
• Land Managers
• ENGO’s
• Public
Level 5
General Guild-level Indices
Level 4
(e.g., forest specialists,
wetland specialists, non-native species)
Specific Guild-level Indices
(e.g., Old-growth specialists, uncommon species,
resident species)
• Regional Managers
• ENGO’s
• Scientists
• Policy Makers
Level 3
State of Individual Species
Level 2
In c
rea
s in
gD
ata
Re
fi
ne
me
nt,
An
al y
s is
,S
yn
the
s
is
(e.g., mammals or birds )
Primary Data
(e.g., % cover, size, condition)
Level 1
• Scientists
• Regional Managers
Figure 1. The ABMP Species Pyramid is an aggregation framework used to develop
indices that describe the state of species and species groups (guilds).
4.3 The Six Levels of the ABMP’s Species Pyramid
Level 1 - contains raw data (e.g., number, size, condition, or location) and, therefore,
forms the foundation for all subsequent data analyses. The creation of subsequent
information products in the species pyramid are derived from this common data source.
Basic summaries on the distribution, abundance, and presence of species also occur in
Level 1.
Level 2 – describes the state of individual species or their reporting equivalent (e.g.,
subspecies or genera). Level 2 aggregates relevant information from Level 1 into a single
7
metric describing the state of a species. For example, information on the abundance and
occurrence of a species can be combined into a single value describing the state of that
species. Species indices developed in level 2 form the building-blocks for indices in
levels 3, 4, and 5.
Level 3 – describes the state of a group of species that share a common characteristic
(e.g., habitat, behavioural, or life-history). At this level, species can reside in none, one,
or more than one guild. We created a series of guilds that contained >5 species from a
single taxonomic category (e.g., vascular plants or birds).
Level 4 – describes the state of a group of species that share a common habitat type (e.g.,
forests, grasslands, rivers, or wetlands). Guilds in this level also include “habitat
generalists” (species common to two or more common habitat types) and “non-native
species”. Level 4 draws directly from level 2 indices. At this level, species cannot reside
in more than a single guild. We created a series of guilds that contained >5 species from a
single taxonomic category (e.g., vascular plants or birds).
Level 5 – describes the state of a group of species that share a common taxonomic
relationship (e.g., Division, Class, Order, or Family). Level 5 draws directly from indices
developed in level 2. We created a series of guilds that contained >5 species from a single
taxonomic category (e.g., vascular plants or birds).
Level 6 – is a single index that describes the state of many species from more than one
taxonomic group. Level 6 aggregates indices developed in level 5. We suggest taking the
average state of level 5 indices rather than taking the average of all species indices
resident in level 2. This ensures that particularly specious taxonomic categories do not
disproportionately influence level 6 indices.
4.4 Infrastructure for the ABMP Species Pyramid
In addition to an overarching framework, the aggregation of raw data into an index
requires the development of a detailed methodology. Relevant variables need to be
identified from the primary data (Level 1), reference conditions and aggregation
algorithms derived, and an approach to integrating information from across regions or
habitats needs to be determined. These details are required to successfully build an index
that is scientifically credible and relevant to decision makers.
4.4.1 Variables
There is no generally accepted methodology for assessing the state of a species.
Variables ranging from genetic to population-level can be used. Two commonly used
population-level variables are occurrence and abundance. Assuming that shifts in the
presence-absence of a species accurately reflects population change, the occurrence of a
species across a habitat or landscape can be an effective indicator of species state.
Similarly, changes in the abundance of a species can be used to describe the status of a
species. The ABMP collects information on the presence-absence of all species captured
by the program and on the relative abundance of most of these species. We used the
occurrence of a species (Occurrence Index; OI) and, when present, the abundance
8
(Abundance Index; AI) of species as base metrics for Level 1 of the species pyramid
(Nielsen and Bayne 2006). The OI and the AI are then combined to form Level 2 metrics
(Figure 2)
6
One
Index
5
Taxonomic
Indices
4
General Guild-level
Indices
3
Specific Guild-level Indices
2
State of Individual Species
Species Index
1
Primary Data
Occurrence Index
Abundance Index
Figure 2. Level 1 base metrics (Occurrence and Abundance Indices) and the general flow
of data aggregation within the ABMP’s Species Pyramid framework.
4.4.2. Reference Conditions
For biodiversity indices to be meaningful to non-scientific experts and the general
public they must be developed using a reference condition (Dayton et al. 1998).
Reference conditions are of 3 general types: desired condition, the start of data collection
(time-zero), or natural (intact) ecosystem conditions. Intact reference conditions have
several advantages over other benchmarks. First, they facilitate standardized comparison
and integration between all species regardless of the directionality in change (e.g., species
that become less common and species that become more common). Second, intact
reference conditions are intuitive and have received considerable attention and support in
scientific literature (Dayton et al. 1998, Scholes and Biggs 2005). Adopting intact
ecosystem conditions as a reference condition is a scientifically defendable and flexible
approach that enables the integration of diverse species information.
The most common method for establishing intact reference conditions is to use a
comparable spatial landbase that is relatively unmanaged (often described as a “control”
in ecological research; e.g., Scholes and Biggs 2005). A second approach is to establish
intact reference conditions using an estimate of the historical landbase conditions (i.e.,
reconstructing the past). The ABMP has developed a third method for establishing intact
reference conditions that draws on mathematical modeling common to the medical
sciences. This method relies solely on data collected by the ABMP and enables the
9
development of regionally specific, intact reference condition for each species of interest.
See Nielsen and Bayne (2006) for a detailed description of the dose-response
methodology employed in this Species Pyramid.
4.4.3 Algorithms
Following the selection of appropriate variables and a reference condition, a program
needs to identify algorithms to summarize data into generalized indices. In general, the
process of developing algorithms for the aggregation of biodiversity data appears
inherently drawn to the use of a purely hierarchical organization. However, we identified
a non-hierarchical process and concluded that the status of species worked well as a
fundamental unit for aggregating information to higher-order levels of the pyramid
(Figure 2). Nielsen et al. (2006) provides a detailed discussion of the algorithms used in
the Species Pyramid.
Indices in the Species Pyramid are scaled from completely intact (100%) to highly
altered (0%). A highly altered index state (0%) represents either a lower occurrence or
abundance than expected under intact conditions or a higher occurrence or abundance
than expected under intact conditions. In this way, a single index framework can
simultaneously accommodate species that have become more (e.g., invasive species) or
less (e.g., endangered species) common on the landbase.
4.4.4 Identifying Species Indicator Groups
At level 5 of the Species Pyramid, taxonomic groups form the basis for presenting
information. Here we follow common taxonomic classification schemes such as those
available through NatureServe, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, and the
United States Department of Agriculture Plants Database.
“Guilds” form the basis for presenting information at levels 4 and 3 in the Species
Pyramid. As used here, species guilds have a broader definition than originally outlined
by Root (1967). For convince, we use the term to describe any species group that has
relevance to sustainable resource decision-making. For example, species guilds need not
be confined to groups of species that exploit environmental resources in a similar way or
that have similar foraging strategies. Species guilds can also be built for endemic or nonnative species, species commonly exploited by humans, or rare species. The critical
criteria for establishing a guild are that they follow the 8 principles that guide data
aggregation in Information Pyramids (above).
Objective methods for determining guild membership are uncommon and
inconsistent. Where practical in the ABMP, we use of objective methods to establish
guild membership. In the absence of objective methods, the process of establishing guild
membership remains transparent, repeatable and defendable.
4.4.5 Guild Development
The ABMP seeks to continually improve the methodology used to assign species
to guilds. To indicate the status of guild development, we have created 4 categories:
Status 1 - Preliminary guild categories have been identified and are awaiting species
assignments.
10
Status 2 - Species have been assigned to guilds. The process of assigning species to
guilds is largely based on the review of field guide books, reference guides,
primary literature, and floras.
Status 3 - The assignment of species to guilds has been independently reviewed by
third-party experts.
Status 4 - Guilds have been verified using quantitative analyses.
5. Species Pyramid – Details About the ABMP’s
Methodology
Using 14 field protocols, the ABMP monitors >2,000 species from a wide diversity of
taxonomic groups (fungi, lichens, mosses, vascular plants, springtails, mites, birds,
mammals, birds, fish, vascular plants, benthic macroinvertebrates, diatoms, water column
macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton and zooplankton). Sites where terrestrial data
collection protocols are applied are located on a province-wide systematic grid. Sites
where aquatic data protocols are applied are similarly distributed but data is collected
from 4 different aquatic environments: lakes, rivers, wetlands (boreal, shield, parklands,
and prairies), and streams (foothills and mountains).
Many of the species monitored by the ABMP are predicted to respond to specific
changes in human land use, but many others were included to assess changes that may
occur from the multitude of existing and future land uses. To maximize the types of
changes that can be detected, species were chosen from many different taxonomic
groups, with a wide range of terrestrial habitat requirements, from a variety of trophic
levels, and from a diversity of life history strategies and life spans. A comprehensive
description of the programs study design and protocols can be found at the website
(http://www.abmp.arc.ab.ca).
5.1 Level 6
Level 6 of the Terrestrial Species Pyramid is composite indicator of
2 or more of the 16 major taxonomic groups identified in Level 5.
Level 6 Indices are calculated directly from Level 5 and each
taxonomic group has equal weighting.
6
5
4
3
2
1
5.2 Level 5
Level 5 of the ABMP’s Species Pyramid is designed to communicate the state of
species that share a common taxonomic relationship. The ability to
6
assess the state of any particular taxonomic group depends on the
5
availability of species-level information. The ABMP will report on
4
3
the status of any taxonomic level of organization that contains 5 or
2
more species.
1
The major taxonomic groups examined are listed below with the
senior uniting taxonomic level of organization shown in brackets.
Where the most senior level of organization supersedes Class, appropriate ABMP Classes
are also identified.
11
Primer on Level 5 Taxonomy
Scientific classification or biological classification is how biologists group and
categorize species of organisms. Modern classification has its root in the work of
Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics.
Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent
revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Scientific classification belongs to the
science of taxonomy or biological systematics.
The basic categories used in classification are: Kingdom, Phylum (Botanists use
Division), Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.
5.2.1 Taxonomic Groups Examined using Terrestrial Protocols
1. Mammals (Infraclass – Eutheria)
2. Birds (Class - Aves)
3. Vascular Plants (Subkingdom - Tracheobionta; Classes – Pinopsida,
Magnoliopsida, Liliopsida, Equisetopsida, Filicopsida, and Lycopodiopsida)
4. Lichens (Class - Ascomycetes)
5. Bryophytes (Division – Bryophyta ; Classes - Bryopsida, Sphagnopsida,
Hepatopsida)
6. Polyporous Fungi (Class - Basidiomycetes)
7. Springtails (Order - Collembola)
8. Mites (Subclass - Acarina )
5.2.2 Taxonomic Groups Examined using Aquatic Protocols
9. Birds (Class - Aves)
10. Fish (Class – Osteichthyes)
11. Vascular Plants (Subkingdom - Tracheobionta; Classes – Pinopsida,
Magnoliopsida, Liliopsida, Equisetopsida, Filicopsida, and Lycopodiopsida)
12. Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Classes - Insecta, Arachnida, Branchiopoda,
Maxillopoda, and Ostracoda.
13. Diatoms (Classes - Bacillariophyceae, Coscinodiscophyceae, and
Fragilariophyceae)
14. Water Column Macroinvertebrates (Classes - Insecta, Arachnida, Malacostraca,
Maxillopoda, Gastropoda, Ostracoda, and Branchiopoda).
15. Phytoplankton (Classes - Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Cryptophyceae).
16. Zooplankton (Classes - Eurotatoria, Maxillopoda, Branchiopoda)
Additional features available at pyramid Level 5 include:
• 3 filtering options available when examining taxonomic categories: 1) native and
non-native species combined, 2) native species only, 3) non-native species only.
• Conditional on the availability of 5 or more species, a submenu will provide the
ability to assess taxonomic groups from family or higher.
12
ABMP Guilds
Details about species membership into ABMP guilds are available as an Excel
spreadsheet and can be obtained by contacting ABMP staff.
As of August 2006, all mammal and bird species in Alberta had been classified into
guilds. Most vascular plant, lichen, and bryophyte species identified during the
ABMP’s prototype phase had also been assigned to guilds.
5.3 Level 4
6
5
Level 4 of the ABMP’s species pyramid is designed to
4
communicate the state of species that share an association with a
3
2
major habitat type in Alberta. Each of the ABMP’s 16 taxonomic
1
groups (see 5.2 Level 5) is divided into broad habitat guilds (Broad
Guilds). Taxonomic groups monitored using terrestrial protocols are
divided into 8 Broad Guilds. Within a taxonomic group, species can only be included in
one of the Broad Guilds but do not need to be included in any of the guilds.
Taxonomic groups monitored using aquatic protocols are divided into 5 broad habitat
guilds. Similar to the terrestrial guilds, the broad aquatic guilds are repeated for each
taxonomic group and species can only be included in one of the guilds but do not need to
be included in any of the guilds. With the exception of the Non-native Species guild, all
Level 4 guilds are composed of native species only.
5.3.1 Broad Terrestrial Guilds
1. Forest Species - species that depend on forests for living/reproduction and have
higher densities in forest than in other vegetation types.
2. Grassland Species - species that depend on non-alpine upland terrestrial habitat
dominated by vegetation <1 m in height for living/reproduction during the breeding
season and have higher densities in “grassland” than in other vegetation types.
3. Alpine Species - species that depend on alpine habitat (as defined by Beckingham
and Archibald 1996) for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have
higher densities in alpine than in other vegetation types.
4. Peatland Species - species that depend on peatland bogs and fens (as defined by
Beckingham and Archibald 1996) for living/reproduction during the breeding
season and have higher densities in peatlands than in other habitat types.
5. Terrestrial Habitat Generalist Species - species that do not have a clear habitat
type with maximum density during the breeding season, and that have relatively
high density in at least 2 of the previous 4 habitat categories.
6. Non-Native Species – species that did not live/breed in the natural region prior to
European settlement (Codes: 0=species native to the natural region, 1=species not
native to North America prior to European settlement, and 9=species not native to
Alberta but native to North America prior to European settlement (e.g., the Eastern
gray squirrel)).
13
5.3.1 Broad Aquatic Guilds
1. Stream and River Species - species that depend on aquatic habitat characterized
by permanent flowing fresh water and have higher densities in this habitat type than
in other aquatic habitat type.
2. Lake Species - species that depend on aquatic habitat characterized by permanently
standing, open, fresh water (>500 ha of open water) and have higher densities in
this habitat type than in other aquatic habitat type.
3. Wetland Species – species that depend on wetlands (defined marshes, ponds, and
sloughs - Beckingham and Archibald 1996) for living/reproduction during the
breeding season and have higher densities in wetlands than in other habitat types.
4. Riparian Species - species that depend on the transition between aquatic and
upland terrestrial habitat for living/reproduction during the breeding season and
have higher densities in this habitat than in other habitat types.
5. Aquatic Habitat Generalist Species - species that do not have a clear habitat type
with maximum density during the breeding season, and that have relatively high
density in at least 2 of the previous 4 habitat categories.
6. Non-Native Species – species that did not live/breed in the natural region prior to
European settlement (Exel Spreadsheet Codes: 0=species native to the natural
region, 1=species not native to North America prior to European settlement, and
9=species not native to Alberta but native to North America prior to European
settlement (e.g., purple loosestrife)).
5.4 Level 3
6
5
4
3
Level 3 describes the state of a group of species that share a
common characteristic (e.g., habitat, behavioural, or life-history).
2
1
At this level, species can reside in none, one, or more than one
guild. Guilds in level 3 contain >5 species and are restricted to the
aggregation species from a single taxonomic category (e.g., within vascular plants or
within fish).
Level 3 guilds used by the ABMP were determined based on their relevance to
decision-makers and clearly do not include all possible guilds. Many are habitat based
while some are based on other common characteristics such as life-history or their
management concern. Species can be included in as many of the guilds as they belong to,
but do not necessarily need to be included in any of the guilds. Species in habitat based
guilds will only be included if they require the habitat for living/reproduction (i.e., simply
using the habitat is not sufficient, they must require it).
Native and non-native species are included in the guilds but, within the ABMP’s
online information service, users will be asked whether they wish to analyze only native,
or all species.
14
5.4.1 Mammals (Mammailia)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 2*
Level 3 Mammal Guilds
1. Old-growth Forest: Species requiring old-growth forests – defined as species that
depend on forests > 80 years old for living/reproduction during the breeding season
and have higher densities in old forest than in other vegetation type.
2. Forest Burns: Species requiring forest burns – defined as species that depend on
burned forest for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have higher
densities in burned forest than in other vegetation types.
3. Early Seral: Forest Species requiring early seral forests – defined as species that
depend on forests (areas with trees) <20 years old for living/reproduction during the
breeding season and have higher densities in young forest than in other vegetation
types.
4. Interior Forest: Interior forest species – defined as species that depend on large
patches of forests for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have higher
densities in the center of large forest patches than in other vegetation types, including
the edge of forests.
5. Forest Edge: Specialists Forest edge species – defined as species that depend on the
interface between forest and open habitat (where open habitat is terrestrial habitat
such as agricultural and natural clearings and includes bogs and fens) during the
breeding season, and have higher densities at forest edge than in other vegetation
types.
6. Uncommon Species: Species of Concern in Alberta – defined as Extirpated, At Risk,
May be at Risk, or Sensitive, by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.
7. High Responsibility: Species for which Alberta has a high global responsibility –
defined as species that had more than 10% of their breeding range in Alberta prior to
European settlement.
8. Non-native Invasive Species: All species that were not found in North America prior
to European Settlement.
9. Human Modified Habitat: Species associated with human modified habitats –
defined as species that have higher densities in human modified habitats during the
breeding season than in natural vegetation types.
10. Dead Wood: Species requiring dead wood (snags, stumps and logs) for survival and
reproduction.
11. Riparian: Riparian Specialists – defined as species that depend on riparian areas
(terrestrial/aquatic edges of streams, rivers, marshes, bogs, ponds, and lakes) for
living/foraging during the breeding season, and have higher densities in riparian areas
than in other habitats.
12. Cavity Nesting: Cavity nesting species – defined as species that nest in tree cavities.
13. Habitat Engineers: – defined as species that create unique habitats structures (eg.,
cavities, burrows, kill trees, etc) that other species use. The modified habitat/structure
*
ABMP Guild Development Status describes the degree of background work and verification that has been
done in support of guild membership classifications. “Guild Development Status” descriptions are found in
section of 4.4.5 of this report.
15
must be used by many other taxa and be present for many years after it has been
created.
14. Irruptive Species: Irruptive (cyclic) Species – defined as species that regularly
fluctuate in density among years by more than 3-fold.
15. Carnivorous Species: Carnivores – defined as species that eat mainly vertebrates
(includes picivores, carnivorous mammals, and birds of prey).
16. Game Species: – defined as species that are hunted, trapped, or fished for food or
economic gain by humans.
5.4.2 Birds (Aves)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 2 (Status 1 for bird species detected using aquatic
protocols - Guilds 21-24)
Only species that live and breed in Alberta were included in these bird guilds. Thus,
the guilds do not include species that are “Accidental/Vagrant” in the Alberta Rankings,
or that were “SubSpecies”, or that simply migrated through Alberta.
Level 3 Bird Guilds
1. Old-growth Forests†
2. Forest Burns†
3. Early Seral Forest†
4. Interior Forest†
5. Forest Edge Specialists†
6. Uncommon Species†
7. High Responsibility†
8. Human Modified Habitat†
9. Dead Wood†
10. Riparian†
11. Cavity Nesting†
12. Habitat Engineers†
13. Non-native Invasive Species†
14. Irruptive Species†
15. Carnivorous Species†
16. Game Species†
17. Winter Residents: – defined as birds that remain in Alberta during the winter,
including species that remain in Alberta but that migrate from their breeding areas or
those that may are nomadic in the winter. Species that migrate from the Artic to
Alberta for the winter were included in this category.
18. Neotropical Species: – defined as birds that have >70% of their winter range in the
neotropics (South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean).
19. Short Distance Migrants: – defined as birds that migrate to southern Canada, coastal
Canada, or the USA for the winter.
20. Cliff Species: - species that depend on cliffs (rocky or mineral soil) or rocky outcrops
(often along water courses) for living/reproduction during the breeding season and
have higher densities on “cliffs” than in other habitat types.
21. Obligate Wetland Species:
†
See 5.4.1 Mammal Guild for a definition
16
22. Dabbling Ducks (omnivorous):
23. Diving Ducks (insectivorous):
24. Wading and Shorebirds:
5.4.3 Vascular Plants (Magnoliopsida, Liliopsida, Pinopsida,
Filicopsida, Equisetopsida, and Lycopodiopsida)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 2 (Status 1 for bird species detected using aquatic
protocols - Guilds 21-24)
Level 3 Vascular Plant Guilds
1. Old-growth Forests†
2. Forest Burns†
3. Early Seral Forest†
4. Uncommon Species†
5. High Responsibility†
6. Human Modified Habitat†
7. Dead Wood†
8. Interior Forest Species: (generally >50m from edge but will depend on the taxa)
(species that depend on large patches of forests for living/reproduction and have
higher densities in the center of large forest patches than in other vegetation types,
including the edge of forests)
9. Native Weedy Species: - Species that are native to North America (and possibly
Alberta) and considered noxious, invasive, or weedy in Alberta’s natural regions.
10. Non-native Invasive Species†
11. Riparian†
12. Form- categories either forb, graminoid, shrub, tree, fern, horsetail.
13. Nitrogen Fixers: species that have mutualistic associations with nitrogen fixing
bacteria in their roots or root nodules.
14. Edible fruit producers: species that produce fruits or seeds that generally are edible
to both humans and animals.
15. Heterotrophs: species that are saprophytes, parasites, or carnivores - plants that use
means other than photosynthesis to subsist, either partially or completely.
16. Nectar Producers: Plants that were noted as important nectar-producing species for
insects and/or birds by guidebooks.
17. Annuals/Biennials: Species where individual plants live one or two years,
completing their entire life cycle within that period
18. Perennials: Species where individual plants live longer than two years, and
reproduce in more than one year.
19. Obligate Wetland: Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural
conditions in wetlands (Reed 1988).
20. Facultative Wetland: Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%),
but occasionally found in non-wetlands (Reed 1988).
21. Facultative Upland: Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67%99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-33%) (Reed
1988).
17
22. Obligate Upland: Occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always
(estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in non-wetlands in the region
specified (Reed 1988).
5.4.4 Lichens (Ascomycetes)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 2
Level 3 Lichen Guilds
1. Old-growth Forests†
2. Forest Burns†
3. Early Seral Forest†
4. Uncommon Species†
5. High Responsibility†
6. Human Modified Habitat†
7. Dead Wood†
8. Interior Forest Species‡
9. Non-native Invasive Species†
10. Foliose: Foliose (leaf-like growth form) lichens
11. Fruiticose: Fruitocose (shrubby or hair-like growth form) lichens
12. Epiphytic: Epiphytic or bark growing lichens (on trees alone??)
13. Rocky Outcrops: Species requiring rocky outcrops – defined as species that depend
on rocky substrates for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have
higher densities in these habitats than in other habitat types.
14. Calcium Rich, Alkaline Substrates: Species requiring calcium rich substrates –
defined as species that depend on calcium rich, alkaline substrates (pH ≥8) for
living/reproduction during the breeding season and have higher densities in these
habitats than in other habitat types.
15. Acidic Soils: Species requiring acid soils – defined as species that depend on acid
soils (pH ≤6) for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have higher
densities in these habitats than in other habitat types.
16. Pollution Sensitive: Pollution sensitive lichens (i.e., a well-established monitoring
spp)
17. VIP wildlife: Lichens used by wildlife for food, nesting material, etc.
18. Culturally Important: Culturally/Economically Important Species
5.4.5 Bryophytes (Mosses - Bryopsida, Sphagnopsida, Hepatopsida)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 2
Level 3 Moss Guilds:
1. Old-growth Forests†
2. Forest Burns†
3. Early Seral Forest†
4. Uncommon Species†
5. High Responsibility†
‡
See 5.4.3 Vascular Plants for a definition
18
6. Human Modified Habitat†
7. Dead Wood†
8. Interior Forest Species‡
9. Non-native Invasive Species†
10. Drought Sensitive: species that are not adapted to survive prolonged drought
conditions.
11. Low productivity Specialists: species that are adapted to low productivity habitats
(e.g., low moisture and low nutrients)
12. Epiphytic: Epiphytic or bark growing bryophytes (on trees alone)
13. Terrestrial Riparian Habitat: define as defined as species that depend on riparian
areas (terrestrial/aquatic edges of streams, rivers, marshes, bogs, ponds, and lakes) for
living/foraging during the breeding season, and have higher densities in riparian areas
than in other vegetation types (i.e., within 10m of flowing or standing water).
14. Calcium Rich, Alkaline Substrates: Species requiring calcium rich substrates –
defined as species that depend on calcium rich, alkaline substrates (pH ≥8) for
living/reproduction during the breeding season and have higher densities in these
habitats than in other habitat types.
15. Acid Substrates: Species requiring acid soils – defined as species that depend on
acid soils (pH ≤6) for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have higher
densities in these habitats than in other habitat types.
16. Shade Intolerant: species that do not tolerate shade
17. Rock Outcrops: Species requiring rocky outcrops – defined as species that depend
on rocky substrates for living/reproduction during the breeding season and have
higher densities in these habitats than in other habitat types.
5.4.6 Polyporous Fungi (Basidiomycetes)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 Fungi Guilds:
1. Old-growth Forests†
2. Forest Burns†
3. Early Seral Forest†
4. Uncommon Species†
5. High Responsibility†
6. Interior Forest Species‡ (low dispersal capabilities)
7. Human Modified Habitat†
8. Interior Forest Species‡
9. Non-native Invasive Species†
10. Dry forests:
11. Wet forests:
12. Deciduous Specialists:
13. Conifer Specialists:
14. Preference for Large, Decayed Logs:
5.4.7 Springtails (Entognatha)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
19
Level 3 Springtail Guilds:
1. Euedaphic (permanent soil dwellers; Gesin 1943)
2. Hemiedaphic (species that live in superficial soil layers and leaf litter)
3. Epiedaphic (species that live in the surface and on vegetation)
4. Eurytopic species - Able to adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions;
widely distributed.
5. Human Modified Habitat† (native weedy species; ruderal species)
6. Interior Forest Species‡
7. Non-native Invasive Species†
5.4.8 Mites (Arachnida)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 Mite Guilds:
1. Fungivorous Species:
2. Predatory Species:
3. Detritovores:
4. Euedaphic: permanent soil dwellers; Gesin 1943
5. Hemiedaphic: species that live in superficial soil layers and leaf litter
6. Epiedaphic: species that live in the soil surface and on vegetation:
7. Eurytopic Species: - Able to adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions;
widely distributed.
8. Human Modified Habitat: native weedy species; ruderal species
9. Acidophilic: optimal occurrence at pH <5.5
10. Circumneutral: Mainly occurring at pH-values about 7
11. Alkalibiontic: Exclusively occurring at pH >7
12. Interior Forest Species‡
13. Non-native Invasive Species†
5.4.9 Fish (Osteichthyes – Rivers & Lakes)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 2
Level 3 Fish Guilds:
1. Uncommon Species†
2. High Responsibility†
3. Apex Predators: defined as species (or particular life-history stages within a species;
e.g., large walleye) that play a major role in shaping community function
4. Native Weedy Species‡
5. Non-native Invasive Species†
6. Common Specialists: Moderate role in community function and definition
7. Common Generalists: Minor role in defining community function and definition
8. Game Species†
20
5.4.10 Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Insecta, Arachnida,
Branchiopoda, Maxillopoda, Ostracoda – Streams & Rivers)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Guilds:
pH
1. Acidobiontic: optimal occurrence at pH <5.5
2. Circumneutral: Mainly occurring at pH-values about 7
3. Alkalibiontic: Exclusively occurring at pH >7
Salinity
4. Preference for fresh water: salinity <0.2%
5. Preference for brackish water: salinity 1.8 - 9.0%
Nitrogen uptake metabolism
6. Nitrogen-autotrophic taxa: species requiring dissolved inorganic nitrogen for
optimal growth
7. Facultatively nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing periodically elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
8. Obligately nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing continuously elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
Oxygen Requirements
9. High - fairly high: >75% saturation
10. Moderate: above 50% saturation
11. Low - very low: <50% saturation
Pollution
12. Pollution-intolerant species: oligosaprobic
13. Pollution-tolerant species: polysaprobic
Trophic State
14. Oligotraphentic: preference for nutrient-poor, oligotrophic waters; expect an
increase in oligotraphentic species with decreasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
15. Eutraphentic: preference for nutrient-enriched, eutrophic waters; expect an
increase in eutraphentic species with increasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
16. Intolerant of Eutrophication and hyper-eutrophication
Other
17. Cold-adapted species: unable to tolerate elevated water temperatures
18. Euthermal species: tolerant of high temperatures
19. Taxa Intolerant of Sedimentation
20. Taxa Intolerant to Water Flow Fluctuations
21. Filterers: macrobenthos that filter FPOM from either the water column or
sediment
22. Grazers and Scrapers: macrobenthos that scrape or graze upon periphyton
23. Clinger Taxa: having fixed retreats or adaptations for attachment to surfaces in
flowing water
24. Omnivores and Scavengers: generalists in feeding strategies
25. Predators: predator functional feeding group
21
26. Shredders: macrobenthos that "shreds" leaf litter
27. Multivoltine: organisms having short -several per year- life cycle
28. Univoltine: relatively long-lived -life cycles of 1 or more years
5.4.11 Diatoms (Bacillariophyceae, Coscinodiscophyceae,
Fragilariophyceae – Streams & Rivers)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 Diatom Guilds:
pH
1. Acidobiontic: optimal occurrence at pH <5.5
2. Circumneutral: Mainly occurring at pH-values about 7
3. Alkalibiontic: Exclusively occurring at pH >7
Salinity
4. Preference for fresh water: salinity <0.2%
5. Preference for brackish water: salinity 1.8 - 9.0%
Nitrogen uptake metabolism
6. Nitrogen-autotrophic taxa: species requiring dissolved inorganic nitrogen for
optimal growth
7. Facultatively nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing periodically elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
8. Obligately nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing continuously elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
Oxygen Requirements
9. High - fairly high: >75% saturation
10. Moderate: above 50% saturation
11. Low - very low: <50% saturation
Pollution
12. Pollution-intolerant species: oligosaprobic
13. Pollution-tolerant species: polysaprobic
Trophic State
14. Oligotraphentic: preference for nutrient-poor, oligotrophic waters; expect an
increase in oligotraphentic diatoms with decreasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
15. Eutraphentic: preference for nutrient-enriched, eutrophic waters; expect an
increase in eutraphentic diatoms with increasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
16. Intolerant of Eutrophication and hyper-eutrophication
Other
17. Euthermal: tolerant of high temperatures
18. Motile Diatoms: the status of motile diatoms can be related to siltation levels –
(
)
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/ch06main.html#Section%206.1.4
22
5.4.12 Water Column Macroinvertebrates (Insecta, Arachnida,
Malacostraca, Maxillopoda, Gastropoda, Ostracoda,
Branchiopoda - Wetlands)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 WC Macroinvertebrate Guilds:
pH
1. Acidobiontic: optimal occurrence at pH <5.5
2. Circumneutral: Mainly occurring at pH-values about 7
3. Alkalibiontic: Exclusively occurring at pH >7
Salinity
4. Preference for fresh water: salinity <0.2%
5. Preference for brackish water: salinity 1.8 - 9.0%
Nitrogen uptake metabolism
6. Nitrogen-autotrophic taxa: species requiring dissolved inorganic nitrogen for
optimal growth
7. Facultatively nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing periodically elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
8. Obligately nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing continuously elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
Oxygen Requirements
9. High - fairly high: >75% saturation
10. Moderate: above 50% saturation
11. Low - very low: <50% saturation
Pollution
12. Pollution-intolerant species: oligosaprobic
13. Pollution-tolerant species: polysaprobic
Trophic State
14. Oligotraphentic: preference for nutrient-poor, oligotrophic waters; expect an
increase in oligotraphentic diatoms with decreasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
15. Eutraphentic: preference for nutrient-enriched, eutrophic waters; expect an
increase in eutraphentic diatoms with increasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
16. Intolerant of Eutrophication and hyper-eutrophication
Other
17. Cold-adapted species: unable to tolerate elevated water temperatures
18. Euthermal species: tolerant of high temperatures
5.4.13 Phytoplankton (Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae,
Cryptophyceae - Lakes).
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 Phytoplankton Guilds:
pH
1. Acidobiontic: optimal occurrence at pH <5.5
23
2. Circumneutral: Mainly occurring at pH-values about 7
3. Alkalibiontic: Exclusively occurring at pH >7
Salinity
4. Preference for fresh water: salinity <0.2%
5. Preference for brackish water: salinity 1.8 - 9.0%
Nitrogen uptake metabolism
6. Nitrogen-autotrophic taxa: species requiring dissolved inorganic nitrogen for
optimal growth
7. Facultatively nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing periodically elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
8. Obligately nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing continuously elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
Oxygen Requirements
9. High - fairly high: >75% saturation
10. Moderate: above 50% saturation
11. Low - very low: <50% saturation
Pollution
12. Pollution-intolerant species: oligosaprobic
13. Pollution-tolerant species: polysaprobic
Trophic State
14. Oligotraphentic: preference for nutrient-poor, oligotrophic waters; expect an
increase in oligotraphentic species with decreasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
15. Eutraphentic: preference for nutrient-enriched, eutrophic waters; expect an
increase in eutraphentic species with increasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
16. Intolerant of Eutrophication and hyper-eutrophication
Other
17. Cold-adapted species: unable to tolerate elevated water temperatures
18. Euthermal species: tolerant of high temperatures
19. Green Algae
20. Brown Algae
21. Cyanobacteria
5.4.14 Zooplankton (Eurotatoria, Maxillopoda, Branchiopoda – Lakes)
ABMP Guild Development Status: 1
Level 3 Zooplankton Guilds:
pH
1. Acidobiontic: optimal occurrence at pH <5.5
2. Circumneutral: Mainly occurring at pH-values about 7
3. Alkalibiontic: Exclusively occurring at pH >7
Salinity
4. Preference for fresh water: salinity <0.2%
5. Preference for brackish water: salinity 1.8 - 9.0%
Nitrogen uptake metabolism
24
6. Nitrogen-autotrophic taxa: species requiring dissolved inorganic nitrogen for
optimal growth
7. Facultatively nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing periodically elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
8. Obligately nitrogen-heterotrophic taxa: needing continuously elevated
concentrations of organically bound nitrogen
Oxygen Requirements
9. High - fairly high: >75% saturation
10. Moderate: above 50% saturation
11. Low - very low: <50% saturation
Pollution
12. Pollution-intolerant species: oligosaprobic – generally unable to tolerate reduced
dissolved oxygen, increased fine sediment, and "fouling" by filamentous algae
13. Pollution-tolerant species: polysaprobic
Trophic State
14. Oligotraphentic: preference for nutrient-poor, oligotrophic waters; expect an
increase in oligotraphentic diatoms with decreasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
15. Eutraphentic: preference for nutrient-enriched, eutrophic waters; expect an
increase in eutraphentic diatoms with increasing nutrient and organic matter
enrichment
16. Intolerant of Eutrophication and hyper-eutrophication
Other
17. Cold-adapted species: unable to tolerate elevated water temperatures
18. Euthermal species: tolerant of high temperatures
5.5 Level 2
6
5
4
3
Level 2 is composed of indices that describe the state of
2
individual species. An index value is calculated for every species
1
that is detected at >10 sites within a natural region. Every species
present in Level 2 has, at a minimum, data on their occurrence and distribution across the
province. Many species also have information describing their relative or absolute
abundance. See Nielsen and Bayne (2006) for a description of how species indices are
calculated. Supporting data for Level 2 can be found in Level 1.
Level 2 indices form the foundation for index development in levels 3, 4, and 5. The
relationship between indices in Level 2 and indices above is not strictly hierarchical as
data from level 2 feeds directly into Levels 3, 4, and 5.
5.6 Level 1
Level 1 is made up of raw data and basic species metrics including:
•
•
Raw data in the form of spread sheets.
Information on the frequency of detection is used to develop an
6
5
4
3
2
1
25
•
•
Occurrence Index (OI) for each species
Information on the number of individuals detected at each site is used to develop an
Abundance Index (AI) for each species where data is available.
Range maps are provided for each species but are not used in the development of
ABMP’s indices
26
Literature Cited
Beckingham, J.D., and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field guide to the ecosites of northern
Alberta. Can. For. Serv. North. For. Cent. Spec. Rep. 5.
Dayton, P. K. 2001. Reversal of the burden of proof in fisheries management. Science
279:821-822.
Nielsen, S.E., E.M. Bayne, J. Schieck, J. Herbers, and S.A Boutin. 2006. A new method
to estimate species and biodiversity intactness using empirically derived reference
conditions. In review.
Nielsen, S.E., and E. Bayne. 2006. A Manual for Estimating Biodiversity Intactness for
the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program: Description and Working Example.
Available at: www.abmp.arc.ab.ca.
Norton, B. G. 1998. Improving ecological communication: the role of ecologists in
environmental policy formation. Ecological Applications 8:350-364.
Overton, J. M., R. T. Theo Stephens, J. R. Leathwick, and A. Lehmann. 2002.
Information pyramids for informed biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and
Conservation 11:2093:2116.
Reed P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington D.C., USA. 1996 update available at:
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list96.html
Root, R.B. 1967. The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher.
Ecological Monographs 37:317-350.
Scholes, R.J. and R. Biggs. 2005. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45-49.
27
APPENDIX 1 – Resources Used To Develop ABMP
Guilds.
Related and Supporting Resources for Mammals and Birds
Species Identification
NatureServe Code - From the NatureServe web site
(http://www.natureserve.org/getData/animalData.jsp).
Missing species (eg. domestic and introduced species) given a number so they fit
where they belonged taxonomically in the NatureServe list.
Class - from the NatureServe web site
http://www.natureserve.org/getData/animalData.jsp.
Classes for species not included by NatureServe were determined from Godfrey
1986, Semenchuk 1992, Banfield 1974, Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, Russell and
Bauer 1993, Smith 1993, plus the internet for species not present in the reference
guides.
Order - same sources as that for Class.
Family - same sources as that for Class.
Scientific Name - Same sources as that for Class.
Common Name - From Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2000.
Common names for species not included in Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development 2000 were determined for birds from Godfrey 1986, Semenchuk
1992, for mammals from Banfield 1974, Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, and Smith
1993, and for amphibians and reptiles from Russell and Bauer 1993. Names form
the internet were used for species that were not present in the reference guides.
Species Code – 4-letter code consisting of the first letters from the species
“Common” name.
Where possible species codes for birds follow the American Ornithologists’ Union
(give ref).
Alberta Status - From Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2000.
Introduced species that were not included in General Status of Alberta Wild Species
2000 were classified as exotic. Three species (Wood Duck, Eurasian Wigeon,
House Finch) were classified incorrectly by Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development 2000 – these species were classified exotic in the database.
Natural Regions In Which The Species Breeds – Species were classified as 1 for present
through natural region, and 9 for present in only a small portion of the regions
Shield, Boreal, Mountains, Foothills, Parkland, Grassland in Alberta. Classification
was based on information for birds from Godfrey 1986, Semenchuk 1992, for
mammals from Banfield 1974, Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, and Smith 1993, and for
amphibians and reptiles from Russell and Bauer 1993.
Guilds Based On General Habitat Use
Forest Specialists – Classified based on information on birds from Bellrose 1980,
Godfrey 1986, Semenchuk 1992, Gauthier and Aubry 1996, Campbell et al. 19902001, for mammals from Banfield 1974, Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, Smith 1993,
and for amphibians and reptiles from Nussbaum et al. 1983, Russell and Bauer
1993. This information was supplemented by information in Alberta Sustainable
28
Resource Development 2000, and information in the NatureServe web site
(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species).
Grassland Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Alpine Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
Bog Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
Wetland/Aquatic Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Generalists Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Exotic Species – The same information sources as used that for the Natural Regions
Classification.
Guilds Based On Use Of Specific Habitat Characteristics
Old Forest Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Forest Burn Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Young Forest Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Interior Forest Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists, plus Freemark and Collins 1991.
Forest Edge Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists, plus Freemark and Collins 1991.
Cavity Nesting Species – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Guilds Based On Use Of Wetland Characteristics
Wetland Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Aquatic Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Guilds Based On Migratory Behavior
Neotropical Migrant – Based on information from Environment Canada’s web site
(http://map.on.ec.gc.ca/wildspace/hemi-ims.html) with supplementation from the
NatureServe web site
(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species) for
information was not presented by Environment Canada.
Short-Distance Migrant - The same information sources as used that for Neotropical
Migrants.
Winter Resident – Based on information on birds from Godfrey 1986, Semenchuk
1992, for mammals from Banfield 1974, Smith 1993, and Pattie and Hoffmann
1992, and for amphibians and reptiles from Russell and Bauer 1993.
Cliff Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
29
Riparian Specialists – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
Human Associated Species – The same information sources as used that for Forest
Specialists.
Irruptive (Cyclic) Species – Based on information from Boutin et al. 1995, with
supplementation from Bellrose 1980, Godfrey 1986, Semenchuk 1992, Gauthier
and Aubry 1996, Campbell et al. 1990-2001, for mammals from Banfield 1974,
Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, Smith 1993, and for amphibians and reptiles from
Nussbaum et al. 1983, Russell and Bauer 1993.
Habitat Engineers – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
Carnivores – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
Game Species – The same information sources as used that for Forest Specialists.
Species Of Management Concern in Alberta – The same information sources as used
that for Alberta Status.
Species That Alberta Has A High Responsibility For – Based on information for birds
from Environment Canada’s web site http://map.on.ec.gc.ca/wildspace/hemiims.html plus and Godfrey 1986, Semenchuk 1992, mammals from Banfield 1974,
Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, and Smith 1993, and amphibians and reptiles from
Russell and Bauer 1993. If information was not available from these primary
sources, then NatureServe web site
(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species) was used.
Mammals and Birds Literature Cited JimS to fill out
????
Related and Supporting Resources for Fish
Sullivan, M.G. 2006. Development of an index of fish integrity for low-productivity,
boreal aquatic communities: a study of the fishes of the Athabasca River in Jasper
National Park. Unpublished Report by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.
Related and Supporting Resources for Vascular Plants, Lichens and
Bryophytes
Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre’s database. Community Development,
Governement of Alberta. Available at:
http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/parks/anhic/flashindex.asp [August 2006].
Agriculture Canada. 1979. Budd's Flora of the Canadian Prairie Provinces.
Asada, T., B.G. Warner, and A. Banner. 2004. Sphagnum invasion after clear-cutting and
excavator mounding in a hypermaritime forest of British Columbia. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 34:1730-1746.
Beaudry, L., R. Coupe, C. Delong, and J. Pojar. 1999. Plant indicator guide for northern
British Columbia: Boreal, Sub-boreal, and subalpine biogeoclimatic zones. Available
at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh46.pdf [August 2006].
Best, K. F. and A. C. Budd. 1964. Common Weeds of the Canadian Prairies: Aids to
Identification by Vegetative Characteristics.
Brodo, I. M. 1991. Studies in the lichen genus Ochrolechia. 2. Corticolous species of
North America.
Brodo, I.M., S.D. Sharnoff, and S. Sharnoff. 2001. Lichens of North America.
Budd, A. C., and K. F. Best. 1964. Wild Plants of the Canadian Prairies.
30
Crum, H.A., and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America
Cody, W. J. and D. M. Britton. 1989. Ferns and Fern Allies of Canada.
Cormack, R. G. H. 1967. Wild Flowers of Alberta
Daniels, R.E., and A. Eddy. 1985. Handbook of European Sphagna.
Farrar, J. L. 1995. Trees in Canada.
Flora of North America. 2004. http://www.fna.org/FNA/introduction.shtml [August
2006].
Goffinet, B. and R. Hastings. 1994. The Lichen Genus Peltigera ((Lichenized
Ascomycetes) in Alberta.
Goffinet, B., J. Miadlikowska, and T. Goward. 2003. Phylogenetic inferences based on
nrDNA sequences support five morphospecies within the Peltigera didactyla complex
(lichenized Ascomycota). The Bryologist 106:349-364.
Goward, T. 1999. The Lichens of British Columbia,Part II - Fruticose species.
Hale, M.E. 1979. How to Know the Lichens (2nd ed.).
Halonen, P. 1998. Synopsis of the genus Usnea (Lichenized Ascomycetes) in British
Columbia, Canada. Bryologist 101:36-60.
Ireland, R.R. 1982. Moss Flora of the Martime Provinces
Johnson, D., L. Kershaw, A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1995. Plants of the Western
Boreal Forest and Aspen Parkland.
Kershaw, L., J. Gould, D. Johnson, and J. Lancaster. 2001. Rare Vascular Plants of
Alberta.
Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains.
Klinka, K., V.J. Krajina, A. Ceska, and A.M. Scagel. 1989. Indicator Plants of Coastal
British Columbia.
Kulzer, L., S. Luchessa, S. Cooke, R. Errington, F. Weinmann, and D. Vitt. 2001.
Characteristics of the low-elevation Sphagnum-dominated peatlands of western
Washington: a community profile. Unpublished Report for Washington State.
Lawton, E. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest.
Lindblom, L. 1997. The genus Xanthoria (Fr.) Th. Fr. in North America. Journal of the
Hattori Botanical Laboratory 83:75-172.
Lindblom, L. 2004. Xanthomendoza, pp. 561-566. In T. H. Nash III, B. D. Ryan, P.
Diederich, C. Gries & F. Bungartz (eds.), Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert
Region, Vol. 2. Lichens Unlimited, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
MacKinnon, A., J. Pojar, and R. Coupe. 1999. Plants of Northern British Columbia.
McQueen, C.B. 1990. Field Guide to the Peat Mosses of Boreal North America.
Mills, S.E., and E. MacDonald. 2005. Factors influencing bryophyte assemblage at
different scales in the western Canadian boreal forest. The Bryologist 108: 86-100
Montano, A.M. 1998 Suitability of Hygrohypnum ochraceum as an Indicator of Inorganic
Pollutants in Streams and Rivers of North America: Laboratory Studies
Moss, E.H., and J.G. Packer. 1992. Flora of Alberta, Second Edition Technical
Memorandum No. 8220-98-15 available at:
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/eco_research/9815.html [August 2006].
Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia Including
Washington, Oregon & Alaska.
Reed P.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
31
Washington D.C., USA. 1996 update available at:
http://www.fws.gov/nwi/bha/list96.html
Royer, F. and R. Dickinson. 1999. Weeds of Canada and the Northern United States
Schofield, W.B. 1992. Some Common Mosses of British Columbia.
The University of Montana-Missoula Invaders Database 2005.
http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/Noxious_Weeds/state_run.asp?state=Alberta [August
2006].
Thomson, J. W. 1984. American Arctic Lichens. 1. The Macrolichens.
Thomson, J. W. 1997. American Arctic Lichens. 2. The Microlichens.
United States Department of Agriculture. Fire Effects Information System. Available at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [August 2006].
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Plants Database. Available at:
http://plants.usda.gov [August 2006].
Vance, F. R., J. R. Jowsey, and J. S. McLean. 1977. Wildflowers Across the Prairies.
Vitt, D.H., J.E. Marsh, and R.B. Bovey. 1988. Mosses, Lichens and Ferns of Northwest
North America.
Vitt, D.H., N.G. Slack. 1984. Niche diversification of Sphagnum relative to
environmental factors in northern Minnesota peatlands. Canadian Journal of Botany
62:1409–1430.
Vujnovic, K., and J. Gould. 2002. ANHIC Tracking and Watch Lists – Vascular Plants,
Mosses, Liverworts, and Hornworts.
Related and Supporting Resources for Polyporous Fungi
Not yet applicable
Related and Supporting Resources for Springtails
GISIN, H. 1943. kologie und Lebensgemeinschaften der Collembolen im
schweizeirischen Exkursionsgebiet Basels. Rev. Suisse de Zool., 50:131-224.
NRC. http://www.atl.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index-e/what-e/publications-e/afcpublicationse/network-news-e/FHBnews_Winter2001-e.html
Related and Supporting Resources for Mites
Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility:
http://www.cbif.gc.ca/spp_pages/mites/phps/index_e.php [August 2006].
Related and Supporting Resources for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Not yet applicable
Related and Supporting Resources for Diatoms
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
32
Fore, L. S. 2002. Response of diatom assemblages to human disturbance: development
and testing of a multimetric index for the Mid-Atlantic Region (USA). Pp. 445-480 in
T. P. Simon (Ed.). Biological Response Signatures: Patterns in Biological Integrity
for Assessment of Freshwater Aquatic Assemblages. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton,
FL.
Fore, L.S. and C. Grafe. 2002. Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large
rivers in Idaho (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 47:2015–2037.
Van Dam H., Mertens A. and Sinkeldam J. 1994. A coded checklist and ecological
indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of
Aquatic Ecology, 28, 117–133.
Related and Supporting Resources for Water Column
Macroinvertebrates
Not yet applicable
Related and Supporting Resources for Phytoplankton
Not yet applicable
Related and Supporting Resources for Zooplankton
Not yet applicable
33
APPENDIX 2 – Taxonomic Breadth in the ABMP
The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program was designed to capture change in
species from many different taxonomic groups, with a wide range of terrestrial habitat
requirements, from a variety of trophic levels, and from a diversity of life history
strategies and life spans. Listed below are the taxonomic groups (Class) for which 10 or
more species are being monitored by the ABMP. Currently, the ABMP collects data on
more than 10 species in at least 20 different classes (taxonomic sourcewww.itis.usda.gov):
• Magnoliopsida – (Dicotyledons)
• Liliopsida – (Monocotyledons)
• Pinopsida – (Pines)
• Filicopsida – (Ferns)
• Equisetopsida – (Horsetails)
• Bryopsida – (true mosses)
• Sphagnopsida – (peat mosses)
• Hepatopsida – (liverworts)
• Ascomycetes – (lichen)
• Basidiomycetes – (polyporous fungi)
• Chlorophyceae (green algae – aquatic streams)
• Insecta (caddisflies, stoneflies – aquatic streams)
• Maxillopoda –(copepods – aquatic wetlands)
• Eurotatoria – (rotifers – aquatic wetlands)
• Entognatha (springtails)
• Arachnida (mites)
• Branchiopoda (brine shrimp, fairy shrimp – aquatic wetlands)
• Osteichthyes – (fish)
• Aves – (birds)
• Mammailia – (mammals)
34