Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating non-native species and wetland indicator status as components of wetlands floristic assessment

  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluated a potential index for quantifying wetland floristic quality, based on the Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) developed and tested in other regions of the United States. Principal reasons for this study were 1) FQAI is based on plant species’ coefficients of conservatism, which are unavailable for most of the world and 2) FQAI value calculation mathematically neglects exotic (non-native) species. The index that we evaluated, termed the Floristic Assessment Quotient for Wetlands (FAQWet), incorporated components of total species richness, wetland affinity of species present, and the contribution of native versus exotic species to wetland vegetation quality. Thus, this index incorporated factors demonstrated to be influenced by the degree of human activity on the landscape while including both native and non-native plant species, and it used information that is readily available for most plant species encountered in wetlands of the United States. Adequacy of this index at representing perceived human influence on wetlands was evaluated by sampling vascular plant assemblages in 53 wetlands across northern Mississippi, USA. Correlation of FAQWet scores with semi-quantitative disturbance indicators suggested that FAQWet Index calculations weighted by proportion and frequency of native species performed best overall and were comparable with the currently used FQAI, although all indices displayed low correlation with indices of human activity. Analyses of individual components of the disturbance index, along with information on hydrogeomorphology and hydrologic alteration, helped account for some unexplained variation in the relationship between floristic quality and disturbance. For example, there were more exotic species and a lower overall degree of wetland affinity in vegetation of depressional wetlands than in lake fringe and riverine wetlands. The most important benefits of the FAQWet index in these studies were a lack of correlation with total plant species richness (unlike the FQAI), a stronger correlation with non-native species richness than was the case with the FQAI, and the ease of obtaining wetland indicator status and nativity status for FAQWet calculations. Results also highlighted the potential danger of ignoring exotic species in floristic assessments because of the relatively strong correlations of non-native species richness with human activity, hydrologic impairment, and floristic index scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Andreas, B. K. and R. W. Lichvar. 1995. Floristic index for assessment standards: a case study for northern Ohio. Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcombe, C. K., J. T. Anderson, R. H. Fortney, J. S. Rentch, W. N. Grafton, and W. S. Kordek. 2005. A comparison of plant communities in mitigation and reference wetlands in the mid-Appalachians. Wetlands 25: 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. J., S. Carstenn, and C. R. Lane. 2004. Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh condition in Florida. Ecological Applications 14: 784–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronk, J. K. and S. M. Fennessy. 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernes, M. C. and J. C. Helgen. 2002. Indexes of Biological Integrity (IBI) for Large Depressional Wetlands in Minnesota. Biological Monitoring Program, Environmental Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN, USA. Final Report to U.S. EPA #CD-995525-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, R. K. and J. W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. D. 2005. Testing the Floristic Quality Assessment Index in natural and created wetlands in Mississippi, USA. M.S. Thesis. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. D., J. D. Madsen, and G. N. Ervin. 2006. Development of coefficients of conservatism for wetland vascular flora of north and central Mississippi. Geo Resources Institute Report Number 4001, Mississippi State University, MS. March 2006, 15 pp. (http://www.gri.msstate.edu/ information/pubs/docs/2006/MS-Coeff-of-Conservatism.pdf)

  • Herman, K. D., A. A. Reznicek, L. A. Masters, G. S. Wilhelm, M. R. Penskar, and W. W. Brodowicz. 1997. Floristic quality assessment: Development and application in the state of Michigan (USA). Natural Areas Journal 17: 265–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, A. S. and A. Chase. 1971. Manual of the Grasses of the United States, second edition, volumes one and two. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, R. D., C. B. Davis, and M. S. Fennessy. 2002. Ecological relationships between landscape change and plant guilds in depressional wetlands. Landscape Ecology 17: 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, R. D. and M. S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12: 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, John, J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Methods for Wetlands, Manual for using version 5.0. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, OH, USA. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin Wetland/200-1-1-1.

  • Miller, S. J. and D. H. Wardrop. 2006. Adapting the floristic quality assessment index to indicate anthropogenic disturbance in central Pennsylvania wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6: 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. A. 1999. Floristic quality assessment of Wisconsin lake plant communities with example applications. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management 15: 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Jr., P. B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spieles, D. J. 2005. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25: 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swink, F. A. and G. S. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago Region, 3rd Ed. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swink, F. A. and G. S. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region, 4th Ed. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiner, R. W. 2006. Lists of potential hydrophytes for the United States: a regional review and their use in wetland identification. Wetlands 26: 624–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. EPA Biological Assessment of Wetlands Work Group (BAWWG). 2002. Wetland Bioassessment Case Studies. http:// www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg/case.html

  • U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating wetland condition: Using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. EPA-822-R-02-020.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary N. Ervin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ervin, G.N., Herman, B.D., Bried, J.T. et al. Evaluating non-native species and wetland indicator status as components of wetlands floristic assessment. Wetlands 26, 1114–1129 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[1114:ENSAWI]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[1114:ENSAWI]2.0.CO;2

Key Words

Navigation