Transcript Planning to use Volunteer Data: Have we put the cart before the

Planning to use Volunteer Data:
Have we put the cart before the horse?
Bev Clark
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Dorset Environmental Science Centre
It is easy to imagine a multitude of parameters that would be
worthwhile monitoring:
phosphorus………………(we’re worried about eutrophication)
frogs………………………(we’re worried about them disappearing)
bacteria…………………..(we’re worried about getting sick)
benthic invertebrates…(we know they reflect ecosystem health)
These are REASONS why we think it’s a good idea to monitor
But – unless we begin with a clearly defined question (hypothesis)
We may be putting the cart before the horse
In order to get the cart behind the horse:
The Question:
Is the trophic status of the lake changing?............... phosphorus
Are amphibians on the decline? ………………frogs
Is the WQ in this lake/stream impacted?…….benthic invertebrates
These questions will drive the sample collections strategies
and shape the scientific design of the monitoring program from the start
The first step in determining
WHAT to monitor is deciding
WHY you want to monitor.
Lake Partner Program example:
We should measure phosphorus (TP) because it controls algal growth.
Program initiated to improve awareness, foster stewardship etc.
Bonus would be: - characterize trophic status of lakes
- develop long-term means for TP in Ontario Lakes
([TP] = +/- 6 -10ug/L)
BUT
The ONLY thing that the 800 volunteers were interested in doing
was tracking between year changes in the TP concentrations in their lakes.
However, the data were not precise enough to do this,
and there was an emerging need for precise data for input to models.
So…the program needed to be significantly modified to make the data more
useful. ([TP] = +/- 0.7 ug/L)
We should have started with:
Is the trophic status changing in Ontario lakes?
Perception - The Lake Partner Program collects ONLY
TP and Secchi data - surely this is not enough.
people often ask:
“What other thing can we measure?”
or
“What’s the next thing we should be looking at?”
or
“We have some money – what should we measure?”
The best answer to these questions is,
What is your question?
Several Types of Monitoring Programs
•
Do something/anything to increase awareness
and foster stewardship.
(no big deal if the data is never used)
•
Monitor to establish base conditions and
observe trends through time.
(some day we’ll use this data)
•
Collect information that will be “used” as input
to models or to answer specific questions.
(we need the data yesterday)
•
Data mining or metadata/collaboration projects
(other peoples data is always cheaper)
A single type of monitoring program would be more useful
•
Do something/anything to increase awareness
and foster stewardship
(we can still use this data)
•
Monitor to establish base conditions and
observe trends through time
(we know what we will use it for)
•
Collect information that will be “used” as input to
models or to answer specific questions.
•
Data mining or collaboration projects
(consultation process to survey users)
We should be able to say:
“We are assembling these data to answer this question”
Overview of community-based,
monitoring programs
in eastern Canada
Newfoundland
Subset of programs that are lake based:
The actual number of programs remaining that have
clearly defined goals becomes very small.
Examples of well thought out monitoring programs
• Ontario Benthic Monitoring Network
• Halifax Soil and water conservation Society
• EMAN nature watch programs
Beginning with the question: Is this site impacted?
Automated Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Input test site record (location, habitat, taxa abundance)
Run predictive model in OBBN database to predict test site to
reference group
Run reference site query (searches database for records of
reference sites in the test site’s predicted group)
Run index calculator (calculates custom list of summary indices
for test and reference sites and defines “normal range”, usually
reference site mean +/- 2 SD)
Run Hypothesis Tester (assesses if test site is within normal
range of reference sites using multivariate t test)
Generate report
Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network: Automatic Report Output
Reference Site
Clear Lake Inflow
Longitude: -74.76912083°
Latitude: 45.00890889°
22-May-2005
Sampled by: Jones & Craig
Test Site
Hwy. 75
N
UNIMPAIRED
Summary Statistics
Reference Condition Test Site Significant
mean
s
mean
EPT Richness (Family level)
4.75
1.26
6.90
No
Richness
18.50
1.29
19.30
No
% Chironomidae
0.02
0.01
0.01
No
Shannon-Wiener (Family level)
2.52
0.06
2.60
No
Pielou's Evenness
0.86
0.00
0.79
No
% Dominance
22.50
4.20
21.00
No
Hilsenhoff Family Index
2.90
0.34
3.20
No
BioMAP WQId
16.60
1.11
15.20
No
Bray-Curtis Distance
0.11
0.11
0.20
Yes
Generalized Multivariate Distance
6.00
7.00
No
Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network
Clear Lk.
Summary
If you have the general ability to interpret
water quality data, then you have the capacity
to help community based volunteer groups to
set up useful monitoring programs
• Governments can help
• NALMS can help
If you have volunteers collecting data first and
bringing it to you later for interpretation, then
you may have problems.