Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Integrity: Problems and Potential Solutions Garry J. Scrimgeour; Dan Wicklum Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Jun., 1996), pp. 254-261. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0887-3593%28199606%2915%3A2%3C254%3AAEHAIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 Journal of the North American Benthological Society is currently published by The North American Benthological Society.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/nabs.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org Sat Jun 9 14:08:22 2007
J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 1996, 15(2):254-261 O 1996 by The North American Benthological Society
BRIDGES
Integrating Basic and Applied Benthic Science
BRIDGES is a recurring feature of J-NABS intended to provide a forum for the interchange of ideas and information between basic and applied researchers in benthic science. Articles in this series will focus on topical research areas and linkages between basic and applied aspects of research, monitoring, policy, and education. Readers with ideas for topics should contact Associate Editors Nick Aumen or Marty Gurtz. In this issue, Scrimgeour and Wicklum expand on a topic that has appeared in previous BRIDGES (e.g, JNABS 13141, 1994). T k q contrast 2 schools of thought on the concept of ecosystem health and integrity and seek to bring them together by clarifying the definitions and uses of these terms. Nick Aumen, nick.aumen8sfwmd.gov Marty Gurtz,
[email protected] Co-ed itors
Aquatic ecosystem health and integrity: problems and potential solutions GARRYJ. SCRIMGEOUR Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E9
DANWICKLUM~ Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N IN4 The ecosystem approach to monitoring and management of ecological systems is arguably the dominant paradigm in which environmental resources are currently managed (Karr 1991, Haskell et al. 1992, Jackson and Davis 1994, Parks Canada 1994, Polls 1994, Shrader-Frechette 1994, Steedman 1994). The change to the ecosystem approach represents a major paradigm shift from approaches dominated by assessments of chemical and physical monitoring to one that realizes the complexity of ecological interactions, the intrinsic importance of humans within ecosystems, and the need for a more balanced (e.g., sustainable) approach to resource use (Martinka 1992, Rapport 1992, Steedman 1994, Cash 1995, Karr 1995). Definitions of an ecosystem approach are highly variable, but most involve one or more of the following characteristics: 1)the collection and synthesis of existing information, including a historical perspective to identify previous states or processes; 2) a holistic approach bridging different ecological, management, and political levels; and 3) a Present address: Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 311 Bio Station Lane, Polson, Montana 59860 USA.
management approach that is ecologically anticipatory and ethically correct (Cash 1995). A key tenet of the ecosystem approach is the notion that ecosystems can have both health and integrity. Despite the fact that researchers, managers, and regulators have adopted these terms, consensus on what constitutes a healthy ecosystem, and agreement on related definitions, have been elusive and contentious issues in ecology (Shrader-Frechette 1994). Two schools of thought relevant to ecosystem health and integrity (EH&I) represent extremes on a continuum ranging from acceptance (e.g., Rapport 1989, 1991, Schaeffer 1991, Ferguson 1994, Karr 1995) to rejection (e.g., Calow 1992, Suter 1993, Wicklum and Davies 1995).Although each school has advanced its perspective, little attempt has been made to reconcile opposing viewpoints and to critically evaluate recent developments. In addition, the lack of consensus among ecologists seriously compromises scientific contributions to resource management. We evaluate several criticisms of the EH&I approach to ecosystem management and attempt to reconcile opposing views. A historical perspective is presented to identify the 2 contrasting schools of thought describing the utility of
19961
BRIDGES
the EH&I approach. Criticisms and potential solutions are divided into conceptual and application difficulties, and are subsequently identified as those that may be ameliorated by either a minor or a complete change in definition and those that are based on misinterpretationof initial viewpoints or that represent general difficulties of aquatic research rather than being specific to the EH&I approach. For each of the above conceptual and application sections, we stress the importance of establishing bridges between the scientific community and the general public. Lastly, we discuss consequences for biomonitoring programs resulting from definitions of health and integrity as distinct ecosystem attributes.
Historical perspective and defining aquatic ecosystem health and integrity The notion that ecosystems can be healthy is not new. James Hutton used an ecosystemhealth analogy in 1788 when he described the earth as a superorganism capable of self-maintenance (Hutton 1788 cited in Lovelock 1988).A strict interpretation of the superorganism concept is that ecosystems are biological machines in which all components fit and work together to maintain a predetermined proper or optimum end point (see Calow 1992). A less stringent view of ecosystems, but one still invoking a predetermined proper endpoint achieved through tight regulatory controls, was implicit in Clements's theory of ecosystem development (Clements 1936). The resurgence of the ecosystem-health analogy, and its application to resource management, began about 15-20 y ago and has gained serious consideration within the past decade (e.g., Costanza et al. 1992, Woodley et al. 1993, Cash 1995). One extreme viewpoint is that healthy biotic communities and human bodies are both self-adjusting and each exists in an optimum equilibrium maintained by feedback pathways (Ferguson 1994). The other extreme is that the human bodyecosystem health analogy is invalid and only useful when used in a rudimentary, heuristic fashion to convey vague, rather subjective concepts of environmental quality (e.g., Calow 1992, Suter 1993, Wicklum and Davies 1995).Suter (1993) critically evaluated the extreme opposition to the ecosystem-human health anal-
255
ogy and concluded that the health metaphor is invalid; typifying arguments of EH&I opponents, he said that ecosystems cannot be healthy because, unlike mammzilian bodies, they do not have consistent structures from one individual to the next, they do not develop in a consistent predictable manner, and they do not have homeostatic mechanisms. He contended that, unlike other uses of the health metaphor (e.g., economic health) ecosvstem health is treated as an operational management goal, and inappropriately saves decision makers from confronting ecosystem complexity and the subjectivity of setting management goals. ~ h o s eposi%oned somewhere in the middle ground contend that the concept of ecosystem health is useful because different ecosystems show similar responses to ecosystem stress (e.g., changes in nutrient cycling, changes in primary productivity, changes in species diversity, retrogression of species composition, change in size distribution of species, alteration of disease incidence) (e.g., Rapport et al. 1985). Thus, screening for damaged ecosystems may parallel human medicine by monitoring common indicators of ecosystem dysfunction. Schaeffer et al. (1988) suggested that although the multispecies structure of an ecosystem cannot be compared to an individual, an ecosystem health science, paralleling human medicine with goals of systematically diagnosing and treating stressed ecosystems, is a valid-and useful development and worthy of further research. Attempts to define ecosystem health and integrity have been problematic (see Rapport et al. 1985, Chapman 1992, Ferguson 1994, Steedman 1994, Karr 1995). For example, although numerous definitions of integrity exist, early definitions typically described a species assemblage: 1) representative of a natural region that is unimpaired by anthropogenic stresses, 2) resistant and resilient to environmental perturbations, and 3) that comprises an integrative and adaptive community (Karr and Dudley 1981, Rapport 1990, Woodley 1993, Angermeier and Karr 1994). Definitions of health also included ecological persistence, resilience, homeostatic balance, increased probability of survival, and availability of habitat (Chapman 1992, Ferguson 1994). Karr (1995) pointed out that ecosystem integrity and health are fundamentally different. He defined integrity in terms of conditions "at sites
256
SCRIMGEOUR ET AL.
with little or no influence from human actions; the organisms living there are products of the evolutionary and biogeographic processes influencing that site''. In contrast, "health describes the preferred state of sites modified by human activity (e.g., cultivated areas, plantation forests, industrial parks, cities). Such sites do not have integrity in an evolutionary sense, but they may be considered "healthy" when present use neither degrades them in ways that preclude that use in the future nor degrades areas beyond their borders". We accept these definitions.
[Volume 15
nor refuted with scientific arguments, because the scientific method cannot make value judgments about "healthy" (i.e., good) versus "unhealthy" (i.e., bad) use of resources (Wicklum and Davies 1995). In fact, decisions on the appropriate use of resources are societal, where viewpoints from multiple stakeholders are balanced against potential costs and benefits of various resource uses. Input from the scientific community should focus on outcomes (i.e., ecological effects) that could arise from different management as well as the ways in which negative effects, as perceived by society, could be mitigated. Scientists should also work with the Conceptual problems and solutions public to help them understand the benefits of Debate on the scientific validity of the EH&I adopting an EH&I approach to resource use. The term "health is troublesome in that it approach intensified with the critical review by Calow (1992) who identified numerous issues implies an objectively definable ecosystem state that continue to polarize the ecological com- that is preferable to alternative states. As argued munity in terms of the utility of the approach. above, ecological values should be determined We contend that scientists need to re-evaluate by both scientists and society and not defined each of the criticisms of the EH&I approach; in solely within a scientific context. However, we fact, there is some evidence that this process has are not suggesting that scientists necessarily rebegun (e.g., Steedman 1994). Discussion by sci- main on the sideline of environmental advocacy entists on the EH&I approach needs to go be- issues (O'Brien 1993), rather that opinions of yond validity and scientific credibility and to "good" versus "bad" use of resources bridge recognize the use and legal status of these con- societal and scientific domains. cepts in environmental management and protection. Ecosystem health is an operational goal The human body analogy of environmental management (Suter 1993),and The human-ecosystem analogy assumes that the US Clean Water Act and Canada's National Park Act specifically mandate the protection of ecosystems have homeostatic processes that biological integrity (Karr 1991, Martinka 1992, maintain the system in a predetermined optimum condition. Human medicine is largely Parks Canada 1994). Further, we note the advent of new journals based on identifying and rectifying dysfuncdevoted to ecosystem health and management tions that result in abnormal vital signs (e.g., (e.g., Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health) and an heart and respiratory rates, blood pressure, increasing number of books, conferences, sym- body temperature) and blood chemistry. The posia, and workshops on ecosystem health. The similarity of vital signs among humans results EH&I approach may provide scientists with an from the requisite interconnectedness of organ opportunity to convey general ecological prob- systems. If one system fails, the optimal state is lems to funding agencies or to the general pub- cbmpromised and the body shows adverse effects which may lead to death. An optimal state lic in a recognizable format. in humans is maintained by feedback mechanisms resulting from expression of evolutionProblems with definitions arily derived codes that determine fitness (CaInitial rejection of the EH&I approach may low 1976). In contrast to human health, the concept of have arisen because scientists were confronted with what appeared to be a socially derived an optimal state may not apply to ecosystems, ecological concept that was presented to them which do not have evolutionary derived feedpost hoc not for their input, but for their scientific back mechanisms defending an optimum state validation. It has been argued that any defini- (Calow 1976). Whether or not ecosystems attain tion of ecosystem health can be neither justified even temporary dynamic equilibria is debatable,
19961
BRIDGES
257
and apparent points of equilibria may simply be health is defined in terms of a societal use (Karr artifacts of the spatio-temporal scales of obser- 1995) and the subjective nature of environmental goals is formalized. vation (DeAngelis and Waterhouse 1987). Even if the concept of an optimum state applies to ecosystems, defining optimal conditions Application problems and solutions and their variances presents a challenge for at least 3 reasons. First, different colonization his- Indicators of health and integrity tories and site specific biotic or biotic-abiotic inChanges in environmental conditions can be teractions may preclude consistent structures between even apparently similar ecosystems. identified using either a "top-down" or a "botNatural structural dissimilarity may also lead to tom-up" approach (e.g., Norton et al. 1988, functional dissimilarity and confound attempts Caims et al. 1993). In a "top-down'' approach, to define optimal conditions. Second, even in sit- changes at the level of community and ecosysuations where ecosystem structure and function tem are directly assessed in the natural environare consistent enough to allow meaningful in- ment followed by identification of their causes. ter-system comparison, the strength of the con- In contrast, a "bottom-up" approach typically nections between structures and processes is relies on data produced from simple laboratory not known sufficiently well to quantitatively systems, often at small temporal and spatial predict outcomes of perturbations. Third, the scales, to model changes in natural ecosystems spatial and temporal scales over which optimal (Norton et al. 1988, Cairns et al. 1993). Bottomecosystem conditions should be calculated are up approaches, while traditionally chosen for unknown. setting criteria for environmental protection, suffer from low environmental realism; they can, however, be effective and powerful, esThe superorganism analogy pecially when underlying mechanisms of ecoCan ecosystems be viewed as superorgan- system change are known. Cairns et al. (1993) isms? Criticism of the superorganism analogy suggested that successful environmental manhas been strong (e.g., Calow 1992, Wicklum and agement will probably rely on the development Davies 1995),and the consensus is that the anal- and broadening of top-down assessment methogy cannot be defended from an evolutionary ods. Two major categories of top-down endpoints perspective because principles of natural selection do not operate at levels of biological orga- are monitored in ecosystems: biotic structural nization higher than the population (Krebs and components, and ecosystem processes or funcDavies 1978, Steams 1980, Sibley and Calow tions. Structural characters are thought to be 1986, Calow 1992). To those who lack a histor- more responsive to ecosystem stress than funcical perspective, the superorganism analogy ap- tional ones (e.g., Howarth 1991). Schindler pears to be a powerful criticism of the EH&I (1987) suggested that changes in abundance of approach. We argue that this is not the case. small rapidly reproducing species with wide With the exception of Ferguson (1994), the EH&I dispersal powers, and the disappearance of senapproach does not assume that ecosystems op- sitive organisms, are among the earliest reerate in this way. In fact, Rapport et al. (1985) sponses to stress, whereas function variables stated that "Ecosystems are, to be sure, a su- (e.g., primary production, nutrient cycling and perorganismic level of organization, but are not respiration) may be relatively poor indicators of superorganisms". Opponents to the EH&I ap- early stress. proach argue that this analogy compromises the Endpoint definition, selection criteria, and EH&I approach because integrity and health sampling regime will dictate which ecosystem imply that a system has an optimum state that attributes are found to change and whether can be homeostatically defended (Calow 1992). changes are statistically or biologically imporThis criticism is valid; ecosystems clearly do not tant. Responsiveness, sensitivity to change, operate through active feedback to maintain an quality assurance and control, temporal and optimal state. However, the importance of this spatial variability, cost effectiveness, and statiscriticism, as well as others related to the human tical design-all play important roles in deterhealth analogy, is diminished when ecosystem mining which endpoints are monitored (Breck-
SCRIMGEOUR ET AL. enridge et al. 1995).Angermeier and Karr (1994) suggested that ideally endpoints are sensitive to a range of stresses, provide the ability to distinguish stress-induced variation from natural variation, and are easy to measure and interpret. Criteria for selection of different endpoints may differ as a result of the conceptual separation between ecosystem integrity and health. Identifying indicators of ecosystem health will be relatively simple when health is defined in terms of fulfilling a societal need (Karr 1995) and where public input from stakeholders has identified an appropriate resource use. For example, a hypothetical put-and-take non-native trout fishery may be considered to be a healthy system when species presence and catch rates are predetermined to be acceptable. In this simple situation, the indicator of health (i.e., catch rates) would flow logically from a public consultation process where resource use goals are clearly defined. The subsequent challenge to fisheries biologists would be to calculate stocking rates to fulfill angling needs. Determining the extent to which the effects of resource use extends beyond the resource boundary, however, may be more complicated. The above approach has at least 2 advantages. First, defining health in terms of fulfilling a societal use requires that society and the scientific community work together to identify possible resource uses and to determine whether they are biologically feasible. Second, in the longterm, establishing a bridge between scientists and societal interest groups (i.e., stakeholders) increases public awareness and environmental knowledge. For resource managers, the more difficult application may be to determine suitable indicators of ecological integrity, that is, ecosystem characteristics at a particular site that are the product of evolutionary and biogeographic processes. Like indicators of health, proposed indicators of ecosystem integrity are numerous and can be measured at the level of individual, population, and community; debate on the usefulness of these variables is considerable (Reynoldson and Metcalfe-Smith 1992, Cairns et al. 1993, Johnson et al. 1993, Niederlehner and Cairns 1994, Cash 1995). The lack of a consensus among biologists on what constitutes an appropriate indicator of ecosystem integrity is a weak criticism of the EH&I approach. From a pragmatic perspective,
[Volume 15
no single variable can be expected to represent a broad-scale measure of integrity. Nor is it likely that one will be identified in the near future. Initially, indicators of integrity will be selected based on the ecosystem and the specific management concern, and should include endpoints incorporating several levels of biological organization at a variety of spatio-temporal scales. Thus, in most cases, several measures will be used at any one time and the list of indicators will likely increase or decrease as the values of specific measures are better understood. Detection of a degraded site is often difficult, and so is the reconstruction of an ecosystem to a former state. Under the EH&I approach, mitigation and rehabilitation focus on restoration of integrity of degraded sites, which is relatively simple when the biological requirements of the desired community are well known. In reality, biologists are often confronted with the difficulty of restoring ecological conditions to a state that has been poorly defined. For example, introductions of extirpated species is common in management (Griffith et al. 1989). However, the present ranges of even high-profile species are often poorly known; reconstructing historical ranges is a process usually based purely on anecdotal information and at best is a crude procedure. As a result of the above arguments, restoration of true ecosystem integrity, as defined earlier, is strictly an unattainable goal. The only alternative is to acknowledge that decisions must be made with incomplete information. Thus, biologists and managers are forced to make subjective estimations of what the ecosystem would have looked like without human disturbance. Some would argue that the lack of information needed to identify a degraded site and subsequently to restore it to a historic state is a major problem for those advocating an EH&I approach. However, incomplete information is a general management problem and not unique to the EH&I approach. Indicators of ecosystem integrity (i.e., characteristics of sites that are minimally affected by human activities, Karr [1995]) and their management will continue to be identified within the scientific domain, at least in the short-term. However, the process by which indicators of integrity are selected and managed may change if improved communication between scientists and society increases public awareness. Public
BRIDGES
input on which characteristics are of greatest value could be included.
however, are reduced when "health is defined in terms of a societal use (Karr 1995), because the subjectivity of desired end states is recognized. We argue that because science is a pursuit Restoration of structural or functional attributes without values, scientific terms should ideally A related question in the EH&I debate is be selected so that they do not imply a societal whether mitigative or enhancement measures value (i.e., good versus bad use of a resource). should be based on restoring structural attri- A goal of science should be improved basic unbutes (i.e., an individual species or species-as- derstanding of our resources and how they semblage approach) or processes (e.g., a distur- function in both natural and altered settings. bance regime). Historically,the structural-attribute Science can identify plausible outcomes of the approach has predominated, perhaps because of various resource use options, including possible the high profile of many mega-faunal species or mitigation strategies. Whether the intuitive because the focus on a species is driven in many communicative value of the phrase ecosystem cases by health arguments (e.g., enhancement or health outweighs its clearly invalid theoretical sustainability of salmonid fisheries). Simply re- implications remains to be seen. The value of the EH&I framework is that it storing distributions to resemble historical patterns does not ensure ecological integrity, be- shares many of the objectives of mainstream cause processes that regulated communities in ecological research (e.g., identifying spatial and the past have often been disrupted. Although temporal patterns, and the underlying mechaless numerous, there are some examples where nisms producing such patterns). The EH&I apmanagement strategies centre on restoring his- proach may offer useful models from which to toric ecosystem processes. For example, in at- develop more effective institutional structures, tempts to restore integrity of the riparian forests and ways of thinking that assure environmental of the Rio Grande River in New Mexico, flood- quality (Nielsen 1992). The EH&I approach has ing regimes have been manipulated to more challenged scientists to discuss the broader relclosely resemble historical patterns. This manip- evance of their work. Continued development ulation has substantially altered carbon and ni- and evaluation of the EH&I approach is retrogen dynamics (M. C. Molles, University of quired to fully evaluate the utility of the apNew Mexico, personal communication).The ad- proach. In keeping with the philosophy of T. S. vantages of adopting a structural or a functional Eliot, approach to restoring integrity will vary with "We shall not cease from exploration. And the the type of ecosystem being studied and the soend of our exploring will be to arrive where we cietal value of its attributes. The dilemma on started and know the place for the first time''. which approach (i.e., structural versus functional) to adopt is not a strong criticism of the EH&I Acknowledgements approach but rather a dilemma that occurs during the development of any new paradigm. We thank Kevin Cash, Sonja Wicklum, Fred Wrona, Shelley Pruss, Joseph Culp, and Cheryl Summary and Conclusion Podemski for discussing some of the ideas preWe have provided a historical perspective and sented here. This research was funded by post doctoral fellowships from the Natural-Sciences critically evaluated several conceptual and apand Engineering Council of Canada and the plication difficulties with the current EH&I apIzaak Walton Killam Fund to GJS. proach to resource management. Our evaluation suggests that in many instances initial criticisms Literature Cited of the EH&I approach are either invalid or reflect generic ecological challenges faced by bi- ANGERMEIER, l? L., AND J. R. KARR. 1994. Biological ologists rather than being specific to the EH&I integrity versus biological diversity as policy diapproach. In other cases, criticisms of the EH&I rectives: protecting biotic resources. BioScience paradigm are appropriate, including the argu44690-698. ment that the term ecosystem health has invalid BRECKENRIDGE, R. P., W. G. KEPNER, AND D. A. MOUAT. 1995. A process for selecting indicators for monscientific implications. Invalid connotations,
260
SCRIMGEOUR ET AL.
[Volume 15
itoring conditions of rangeland health. Environsemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates. Pages mental Monitoring and Assessment 36:45-60. 40-158 in D. M. Rosenberg and V. H. Resh. AND B. R. NIEDERLEHCAIRNS,J., V. MCCORMICK, Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroNER. 1993. A proposed framework for developinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York. ing indicators of ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia KARR,J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglect263:144. ed aspect of water resource management. EcoCALOW,P. 1976. Biological machines. A cybernetic logical Applications 1:66-84. approach to life. Edward Arnold, London. KARR,J. R. 1995. Ecological integrity and ecological CALOW, P. 1992. Can ecosystems be healthy? Critical health are not the same. Pages 1-15 in P. Schulze consideration of concepts. Journal of ~ q u a t i cEco(editor). Engineering within ecological consystem Health 1:1-5. straints. National Academy of Engineering, NaCASH,K. C. 1995. Assessing and monitoring aquatic tional Academy Press, Washington, DC. ecosystem health: appriaches using individual, KARR, J. R., AND D. R. DUDLEY.1981. Ecological perpopulation, and community/ecosystem measurespective on water quality goals. Environmental ments. Contract report No. 45 to the Northern Management 5:55-68. River Basins Study, Edmonton, Alberta. KREBS,J. R., AND N. B. DAVIES.1978. Behavioural CHAPMAN, P. M. 1992. Ecosystem health synthesis: ecology-an evolutionary approach. Blackwell can we get there from here? Journal of Aquatic Scientific, London. Ecosystem Health 1:69-79. LOVELOCK, J. 1988. The ages of Gaia. Bantam Books, CLEMENTS, F. E. 1936. Nature and structure of the cliNew York. max. Journal of Ecology 24:252-284. C. J. 1992. Conserving the natural integMARTINKA, COSTANZA, R., B. G. NORTON,AND B. D. HASKELL. rity of mountain parks: lessons from Glacier Na1992. Ecosystem health: new goals for environtional Park, Montana. Oecologia (Montana) 1:41mental management. Island Press, Washington, 48. DC. NIEDERLEHNER, B. R., AND J. CAIRNS.1994. ConsistenDEANGELIS, D. L., AND J. C. WATERHOUSE. 1987. Equicy and sensitivity of community level endpoints librium and nonequilibrium concepts in ecologiin microcosm tests. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem cal models. Ecological Monographs 576:l-21. Health 3:93-99. FERGUSON, B. K. 1994. The concept of landscape NIELSEN, N. 0 . 1992. Ecosystem health and veterinary health. Journal of Environmental Management 40: medicine. Canadian Veterinary Journal 33:23-26. 129-137. NORTON,S., M. MCVEY,J. COLT,J. DURDA,AND R. GRIFFITH, B., J. M. SCOTT,J. W. CARPENTER, AND C. HEGNER.1988. Review of ecological risk assessREED.1989. Translocation as a species conservament methods. US Environmental Protection tion tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477480. Agency EPA-230-10-88-041.National Technical InHASKELL, B. D., B. G. NORTON,AND R. COSTANZA. formation Service, Springfield, Virginia. 1992. What is ecosystem health and why should we worry about it? Pages 3-20 in R. Costanza, B. O'BRIEN,M. H. 1993. Being a scientist means taking sides. BioScience 43:706-708. G. Norton, and B. D. Haskell (editors). Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental manage- PARKSCANADA.1994. Guiding principles and operational policies. Canadian Heritage, Minister of ment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario. HOWARTII, R. W. 1991. Comparative responses of POLLS, I. 1994. How people in the regulated comaquatic ecosystems to toxic-chemical stress. Pages munity view biological integrity. Journal of the 169-195 in J. Cole, C. Lovett, and S. Findlay (edNorth American Benthological Society 13:598itors). Comparative analyses of ecosystems. 604. Springer-Verlag, New York. HUTTON, J. 1788. Theory of the earth; or an investi- RAPPORT,D. J. 1989. What constitutes ecosystem health? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33: gation of laws observable in the composition, dis120-132. solution and restoration of land upon the globe. D. J. 1990. Challenges in the detection and Transactions of the Royal Society Edinburgh 1: RAPPORT, diagnosis of pathological change in aquatic eco209-304. systems. Journal of Great Lakes Research 16:609JACKSON, S., AND W. DAVIS.1994. Meeting the goal 618. of biological integrity in water-resource programs D. J. 1991. Myths in the foundations of ecoin the US Environmental Protection Agency. Jour- RAPPORT, nomics and ecology. Biological Journal of the Linnal of the North American Benthological Society nean Society 44:185-202. 13:592-597. D. J. 1992. Evaluating ecosystem health. JOHNSON, R. K., T. WIEDERHOLM, AND D. M. ROSEN- RAPPORT, Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 1:15-24. BERG. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring using inD. J., H. A. RCGIER, AND T. C. HUTCHINSON. dividual organisms, populations, and species as- RAPPORT,
BRIDGES
rity in Canadian National Parks. Pages 155-176 in 1985. Ecosystem health under stress. American S. Woodley, J. Kay, and G. Francis (editors). EcoNaturalist 125:617-640. logical integrity and the management of ecosysT. B., AND J. L. METCALFE-SMITH. REYNOLDSON, 1992. tems. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. An overview of the assessment of aquatic ecosysS., J. KAY,AND G. FRANCIS.1993. Ecologtem health using benthic macroinvertebrates. WOODLEY, ical integrity and the management of ecosystems. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 1:295-308. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. SCHAEFFER, D. J. 1991. A toxicological perspective on ecosystem characteristics to track sustainable development. Ecotoxicology and Environmental About the Authors Safety 22225-239. Carry Scrimgeour is a research associate with the SCHAEFFER, D. J., F. E. HERRICKS, AND H. W. KERSTER. Network of Centres of Excellence for Sustainable For1988. Ecosystem health: I. Measuring ecosystem est Management at the University of Alberta. His health. Environmental Management 12:445-455. SCHINDLER, D. W. 1987. Detecting ecosystem re- research focuses on identifying multi-trophic-level efsponses to anthropogenic stress. Canadian Jour- fects of forestry and natural disturbances on lentic nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44(Suppl. 1): systems in Alberta's boreal forest. He is a recipient of postdoctoral fellowships from the Natural Sciences 6-25. SHRADER-FRECHETTE, K. S. 1994. Ecosystem health: a and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the new paradigm for ecological assessment? Trends Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Endowment, and the in Ecology and Evolution 9:456-457. University of Calgary, and a Visiting Fellowship in SIBLEY,R. M., AND P. CALOW.1986. Physiological a Canadian Government Laboratory. He received a ecology of animals. Blackwell Scientific Publica- PhD from the University of Calgary in 1992, and tions, London. an MSc (Zoology) and a BSc (Zoology) from the STEARNS, S. C. 1980. A review of life history evoluUniversity of Canterbury, New Zealand, in 1987 and tion. Oikos 35:266-281. 1983, respectively. STEEDMAN, R. J. 1994. Ecosystem health as a manDan Wicklum is a PhD candidate in the Departagement goal. Journal of the North American ment of Organisma1 Biology and Ecology at the UniBenthological Society 13:605-610. versity of Montana. His research interests include deSUTER,G. W. 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Environmental Toxicology veloping a bioenergetic approach to ecotoxicological risk assessment and linking the effects of trophic inand Chemistry 12:1533-1539. WICKLUM, D., AND R. W. DAVIES.1995. Ecosystem teractions across spatial and temporal scales. He obhealth and integrity? Canadian Journal of Botany tained an MSc (Aquatic Ecology) from the University of Calgary in 1995 and a BSc (Biology) from 73:997-1000. WOODLEY, S. 1993. Monitoring for ecosystem integ- the University of Guelph in 1991.
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS - Page 1 of 2 -
You have printed the following article: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Integrity: Problems and Potential Solutions Garry J. Scrimgeour; Dan Wicklum Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Jun., 1996), pp. 254-261. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0887-3593%28199606%2915%3A2%3C254%3AAEHAIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.
Literature Cited Biological Integrity versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives Paul L. Angermeier; James R. Karr BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 10. (Nov., 1994), pp. 690-697. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568%28199411%2944%3A10%3C690%3ABIVBDA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0
Nature and Structure of the Climax Frederic E. Clements The Journal of Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Feb., 1936), pp. 252-284. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0477%28193602%2924%3A1%3C252%3ANASOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Concepts in Ecological Models D. L. DeAngelis; J. C. Waterhouse Ecological Monographs, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Mar., 1987), pp. 1-21. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9615%28198703%2957%3A1%3C1%3AEANCIE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O
Translocation as a Species Conservation Tool: Status and Strategy Brad Griffith; J. Michael Scott; James W. Carpenter; Christine Reed Science, New Series, Vol. 245, No. 4917. (Aug. 4, 1989), pp. 477-480. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819890804%293%3A245%3A4917%3C477%3ATAASCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS - Page 2 of 2 -
Meeting the Goal of Biological Integrity in Water-Resource Programs in the US Environmental Protection Agency Susan Jackson; Wayne Davis Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 13, No. 4. (Dec., 1994), pp. 592-597. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0887-3593%28199412%2913%3A4%3C592%3AMTGOBI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management James R. Karr Ecological Applications, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Feb., 1991), pp. 66-84. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1051-0761%28199102%291%3A1%3C66%3ABIALAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R
Being a Scientist Means Taking Sides Mary H. O'Brien BioScience, Vol. 43, No. 10. (Nov., 1993), pp. 706-708. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568%28199311%2943%3A10%3C706%3ABASMTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
How People in the Regulated Community View Biological Integrity Irwin Polls Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 13, No. 4. (Dec., 1994), pp. 598-604. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0887-3593%28199412%2913%3A4%3C598%3AHPITRC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
Ecosystem Behavior Under Stress D. J. Rapport; H. A. Regier; T. C. Hutchinson The American Naturalist, Vol. 125, No. 5. (May, 1985), pp. 617-640. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0147%28198505%29125%3A5%3C617%3AEBUS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
Ecosystem Health as a Management Goal Robert J. Steedman Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 13, No. 4. (Dec., 1994), pp. 605-610. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0887-3593%28199412%2913%3A4%3C605%3AEHAAMG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
