Premium
Designing Impact Assessments for Evaluating Ecological Effects of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Streams 1
Author(s) -
Smiley Jr. Peter C.,
Shields Jr. F. Douglas,
Knight Scott S.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00330.x
Subject(s) - riparian zone , streams , environmental science , habitat , sampling (signal processing) , environmental resource management , biota , ecology , agriculture , aquatic ecosystem , environmental impact assessment , impact assessment , environmental monitoring , computer science , biology , environmental engineering , computer network , filter (signal processing) , public administration , political science , computer vision
Conservation practices are regularly implemented within agricultural watersheds throughout the United States without evaluating their ecological impacts. Impact assessments documenting how habitat and aquatic biota within streams respond to these practices are needed for evaluating the effects of conservation practices. Numerous sampling protocols have been developed for monitoring streams. However, protocols designed for monitoring studies are not appropriate for impact assessments. We developed guiding principles for designing impact assessments of ecological responses to conservation practices. The guiding principles are as follows: (1) develop the hypothesis first, (2) use replicated experimental designs having controls and treatments, (3) assess the habitat and biological characteristics with quantitative and repeatable sampling methods, (4) use multiple sampling techniques for collecting aquatic organisms, and (5) standardize sampling efforts for aquatic organisms. The guiding principles were applied in designing a study intended to evaluate the influence of herbaceous riparian buffers on channelized headwater streams in central Ohio. Our example highlights that the application of our recommendations will result in impact assessments that are hypothesis‐driven and incorporate quantitative methods for the measurement of abiotic and biotic attributes.