USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70283213

A weight-of-evidence system for integrating monitoring and environmental indicators to guide biological conservation and resource management of native taxa

Abstract

Many state and federal environmental management agencies are charged with using data-driven evidence to conserve and restore threatened and endangered species that are adversely impacted by humans. Yet, statistical analyses of available environmental indicator data do not always promote unambiguous, ecologically-meaningful, evidence-based decisions for managing native biota. Here we modified our multi-step quantitative adaptive management framework to identify natural and anthropogenic environmental indicators that maintain or threaten native species. In a proof-of-concept example, we quantified how three native stream fish taxa responded to nine environmental indicators based on three criteria (i.e., statistical significance, ecological relevance, and agreement with expectations). The resulting Weight of Evidence (WoE) integration identified five groups of indicators, clarified ambiguous trends, and identified promising future directions that would not have emerged from examining a single analysis or a single taxon alone. Our evaluation and categorization of environmental indicators established the biological foundation on which multi-disciplinary sustainability rests. Our research contribution demonstrates how following a structured integration framework can lead to novel insights that benefit conservation across organisms and systems even when employing relatively simple analytical techniques. Our results address the following often ignored questions: How do we systematically link together different analytical components of the same larger problems? How do we ecologically integrate similar and dissimilar results across analyses? How can we identify generalities by comparing multiple taxa?

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 36.993083° to 40.003162° latitude; -102.051744° to -94.589933° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Olivia Rode, Martha E. Mather, Devon Oliver, Katherine Nelson, Victoria Reed, Trisha Moore, Shelby Kuck. 2026. A weight-of-evidence system for integrating monitoring and environmental indicators to guide biological conservation and resource management of native taxa. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2026.101311

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Comparing SMART and ELECTRE methods for multi-criteria decision analysis: A case study evaluating conservation strategies

Tradeoffs are part of the inherent challenge of making decisions. Defaulting to a prevalent method can mask methodological variation and potential improvement in decision quality. We applied and compared methods for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in real-world environmental planning. Decision makers at a global conservation organization formed teams to review and prioritize the allocation of resources across a set of existing strategies across seven teams. Each team evaluated and rated strategies based on a common scale composed of weighted objectives and criteria. Sensitivity analysis included implementing two different MCDA methods, varying strategy ratings, and using two different criteria weighting techniques. The MCDA methods were SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) and ELECTRE (ELimination and Choice Expressing The REality). We tested user satisfaction between methods, overall rankings between methods, and whether MCDA improved the decision-making process. The methods did not differ in most comparisons, although participants were more likely to use the SMART method in future tradeoff decisions. We found evidence of rank correlation between methods. Lastly, the teams’ final recommendations were consistent with MCDA results. This study highlights the advantages and disadvantages of MCDA in real-world applications.

Environmental and Sustainability Indicators↗

Wetland hydrologic dynamics and duck productivity are declining in the Prairie Pothole Region, and they are linked

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America is a globally important area hosting >50 % of North America’s breeding ducks. Ducks in the PPR depend on wetlands and grasslands which have experienced accelerated losses in extent and quality due to agriculture. While other bird populations have declined, duck abundance reached record highs recently (2013–2017). We explored this discontinuity by examining monitoring data for trends in pond numbers (wetlands with ponded water) and interannual dynamics (water-level dynamics indexed by interannual change in pond numbers) and how those factors influenced duck productivity in the PPR during 1976–2019. Over time, pond numbers increased but their interannual dynamics declined, indicating stabilization of an ecosystem evolved with a dynamic climate. Our models accounted for 67 and 71 % of variation in productivity of PPR-obligate gadwall ( Mareca strepera ) and redheads ( Aythya americana ), respectively. Breeding productivity of these sentinel species was positively correlated with pond abundance and dynamics, and systematically declined. Accordingly, our analyses revealed sensitivity of breeding ducks to systematic change in the PPR previously obscured by increasingly abundant pond numbers. Interannual pond dynamics improved duck productivity and pond dynamics have declined indicating a de facto 44-year decline in duck productivity which is likely driven by water-level stabilization decreasing quality of brood-rearing wetlands. Residual temporal effects indicated that productivity has also declined for other reasons, such as agricultural land use changes. While mechanisms behind these correlations are speculative, they demonstrate the importance of further understanding land use and climate changes in the PPR for conservation of these important species and ecosystems.

Alberta, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North↗