DOCSLIB.ORG

Invasive Species Impacts on Ecosystem Structure and Function

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INVASIVE SPECIES IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION By Andrea L. Jaeger A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 2006 ABSTRACT INVASIVE SPECIES IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION By Andrea L. Jaeger Exotic species invasion is a worldwide threat to the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. To understand ecosystem level response to the introduction of exotic species, I compared food web characteristics of two eutrophic Great Lakes ecosystems - the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, Canada, and Oneida Lake, New York, USA - before and after zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion using ecological network analysis (ENA) and a social network analysis method, cohesion analysis (CA). ENA quantifies ecosystem function through an analysis of food web transfers, while CA assesses ecosystem structure by organizing food web members into subgroups of strongly interacting predators and prey. In Oneida Lake and the Bay of Quinte, zebra mussel invasion increased food web organization and the potential for system development. Additionally, zebra mussel invasion stimulated benthic production in both systems. Effects on food web structure were strongest in the Bay of Quinte where zebra mussel invasion removed subgroup structure entirely. In Oneida Lake, over 33% of taxa changed subgroup association after invasion, with benthically associated subgroups gaining the most members. This analysis suggested that the effects of zebra mussel introduction are similar in ecosystems of comparable trophic status and that future invasions of eutrophic systems could have similar impacts on ecosystem structure and function. Dedicated to the memory of Beryl Timmer iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, and Michigan State University. I am indebted to the numerous people at these organizations that made this work possible. My major professor, Dr. Doran M. Mason, has been a valuable mentor throughout this research. Despite the distance between his office and mine, he has motivated, guided, and inspired me. My committee members have also contributed greatly to this work. Dr. Kenneth A. Frank offered much assistance with cohesion analysis methods and interpretation; Dr. William W. Taylor was a source of boundless energy and enthusiasm; and Dr. Scott D. Peacor always provided insightful feedback. The graduate work of Dr. Ann E. Krause formed the foundation for much of this research. I highly value her insight in the merging of ecological and social network analysis methods, and the effort she devoted to these analyses. I would also like to thank Dr. Stefano Allesina for his willingness to discuss network analysis, and Drs. Michael L. Jones and James R. Bence for making me a part of their lab. This research was linked with another food web modeling effort to understand the effects of zebra mussel invasion on Oneida Lake and the Bay of Quinte. The Bay of Quinte – Oneida Lake Comparative Modelling Project Workgroup, a group composed of many respected scientists including Dr. E. Scott Millard, P.I. (DFO-GLLFAS), Dr. Edward L. Mills, P.I. (Cornell University), and Dr. Marten Koops (DFO-GLLFAS), provided extensive data and guidance. Additionally, Dr. Mills and the staff at the Cornell iv University Biological Field Station graciously hosted me during June 2004 for Oneida Lake data collection. I would also like to acknowledge the many others who surround and influence my daily life. My (über) labmates were an abundant source of intellectual discussion and entertainment. My close friends and colleagues at the Illinois Natural History Survey Lake Michigan Biological Station, my previous employer, have continued to encourage me throughout this research. The instruction of Drs. Stephen B. Hager (Augustana College), C. Kevin Geedey (Augustana College), and Jason Powell (Zion-Benton Township High School) still inspires me even today; these teachers brought learning outside the classroom and into my life. I thank my parents, Douglas and Barbara Jaeger, and brother, Jeffrey Jaeger, for encouraging me to explore all that holds my curiosity. Finally, I thank Scott M. Miehls, my fiancé, for unwavering support and companionship. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 A Prologue and Context to Understanding Invasive Species Impacts on Ecosystems....1 References ...........................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 2 Invasive Species Impacts on Ecosystem Structure and Function: A comparison of Oneida Lake, USA, Before and After Zebra Mussel Invasion ........................................8 Abstract ...............................................................................................................8 Introduction .........................................................................................................9 Methods ...............................................................................................................13 Study Site...................................................................................................13 Network Construction................................................................................14 Ecological Network Analysis.....................................................................17 Cohesion Analysis......................................................................................19 Results .................................................................................................................22 Ecological Network Analysis – Entire Network........................................22 Cohesion Analysis......................................................................................24 Ecological Network Analysis – Grouped Network....................................25 Discussion ...........................................................................................................29 Cohesion Analysis – Structure...................................................................30 Ecological Network Analysis – Function ..................................................32 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................38 References ...........................................................................................................59 CHAPTER 3 Invasive Species Impacts on Ecosystem Structure and Function: A Comparison of the Bay of Quinte, Canada, and Oneida Lake, USA, Before and After Zebra Mussel Invasion............................................................................................................................65 Abstract ...............................................................................................................65 Introduction .........................................................................................................66 Methods ...............................................................................................................70 Study Site...................................................................................................70 Network Construction................................................................................71 Ecological Network Analysis.....................................................................71 Cohesion Analysis......................................................................................73 Results .................................................................................................................75 Ecological Network Analysis – Entire Network........................................75 Cohesion Analysis......................................................................................76 vi Ecological Network Analysis – Grouped Network....................................77 Discussion ...........................................................................................................78 Cohesion Analysis – Structure...................................................................79 Ecological Network Analysis – Function ..................................................80 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................84 References ...........................................................................................................96 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................101 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 List of food web taxa. Cisco were present in the pre-zebra mussel time stanza but not the post-zebra mussel time stanza; lake sturgeon, zebra mussels, and Camptocercus harpae were present in the post- zebra mussel time stanza, but not the pre-zebra mussel time stanza .........40 Table 2.2 Association between common subgroup membership and the occurrence of ties between predators and prey (adapted from Frank 1995). The odds ratio method maximizes the ratio AD : BC ...................41 Table 2.3 Ecosystem indices for the full Oneida Lake food web network before and after zebra mussel invasion. The percent difference
Recommended publications
  • What Characteristics Do All Invasive Species Share That Make Them So

    What Characteristics Do All Invasive Species Share That Make Them So

    Invasive Plants Facts and Figures Definition Invasive Plant: Plants that have, or are likely to spread into native or minimally managed plant systems and cause economic or environmental harm by developing self-sustaining populations and becoming dominant or disruptive to those systems. Where do most invasive species come from? How do they get here and get started? Most originate long distances from the point of introduction Horticulture is responsible for the introduction of approximately 60% of invasive species. Conservation uses are responsible for the introduction of approximately 30% of invasive species. Accidental introductions account for about 10%. Of all non-native species introduced only about 15% ever escape cultivation, and of this 15% only about 1% ever become a problem in the wild. The process that leads to a plant becoming an invasive species, Cultivation – Escape – Naturalization – Invasion, may take over 100 years to complete. What characteristics make invasive species so successful in our environment? Lack predators, pathogens, and diseases to keep population numbers in check Produce copious amounts of seed with a high viability of that seed Use successful dispersal mechanisms – attractive to wildlife Thrive on disturbance, very opportunistic Fast-growing Habitat generalists. They do not have specific or narrow growth requirements. Some demonstrate alleleopathy – produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants nearby. Have longer photosynthetic periods – first to leaf out in the spring and last to drop leaves in autumn Alter soil and habitat conditions where they grow to better suit their own survival and expansion. Why do we care? What is the big deal? Ecological Impacts Impacting/altering natural communities at a startling rate.
  • A Survey of the Nation's Lakes

    A Survey of the Nation's Lakes

    A Survey of the Nation’s Lakes – EPA’s National Lake Assessment and Survey of Vermont Lakes Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation - Water Quality Division 103 South Main 10N Waterbury VT 05671-0408 www.vtwaterquality.org Prepared by Julia Larouche, Environmental Technician II January 2009 Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 What We Measured..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quality and Trophic Status Indicators.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Acidification Indicator............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Ecological Integrity Indicators................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Nearshore Habitat Indicators
  • A Study of Differences in Vertical Phosphorus Profiles Within the Sediments of Selected Florida Lakes As Related to Trophic Dynamics

    A Study of Differences in Vertical Phosphorus Profiles Within the Sediments of Selected Florida Lakes As Related to Trophic Dynamics

    University of Central Florida STARS Retrospective Theses and Dissertations 1976 A Study of Differences in Vertical Phosphorus Profiles Within the Sediments of Selected Florida Lakes as Related to Trophic Dynamics Edgar Allen Stewart III University of Central Florida, [email protected] Part of the Engineering Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/rtd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Stewart, Edgar Allen III, "A Study of Differences in Vertical Phosphorus Profiles Within the Sediments of Selected Florida Lakes as Related to Trophic Dynamics" (1976). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 258. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/rtd/258 • A STUDY OF DIFFEREilCES IN VERTICAL PHOSPHORUS PRO FILES WliHIN THE SEDIMENTS OF SELECTED FLORIUA LAKES AS [{ELATED TO °fROPfiiC DYNArHCS BY EDGAR ALLE N STEHART III B.S., University of Florida, 1971 THESIS SubmHted o'n partial fulfiliment of the requirements for the degree of Mdster of Science °in the Graduate Studies Program of the Co 11 eye of Engi neer i ng of Florida Technological University , Or l ando, Florida 1976 • A STUDY OF DIFFERENCES IN VERTICAL PHOSPHOROUS PROFILES WITHIN THE SEDIMENTS OF SELECTED FLORIDA LAKES AS RELATED TO TROPHIC DYNAMICS BY E. ALLEIJ STEWART I II \ ABSTRACT Seve"a 1 Flori da 1akes with different docu'llcnted traphi c sta te indi ces were se lected for sediment analysis .
  • Food Web Invaders

    Food Web Invaders

    TEACHER LESSON PLAN Food Web Invaders Grade Length Subjects/strands Topics 4th–8th grade 20–30 minutes Discover how a food Observation, applica- web works by making tion, comparing similari- a live model of biotic ties and differences, gen- components, using the eralization, kinesthetic people in your class. concept development, Then explore how an psycho-motor develop- invasive species disrupts ment that balance. BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Students will have been introduced to the idea of an ecosystem, and the basic relationships in an ecosys- In this fun, active-learning, game about food webs, tem such as producers and consumers, herbivores and each student is assigned to be a plant or animal that carnivores, predator/prey pairs, and some of the inter- can be found in aquatic ecosystems. Then, they learn relationships of their behavior and adaptations. Middle about the relationships between organisms as they pass school students will have been introduced to the idea of a ball of yarn between students (organisms) that have a limiting factors, and later the idea of carrying capac- predator/prey relationship. As the ball of yarn unravels ity. Students will also be familiar with the concept of a and the string is stretched between the many predator/ food chain with a variety of trophic levels. At the inter- prey relationships in the room, the large and complex mediate level, this could include videos, field activities food web network is reveals visually and symbolically and artwork, as well as reading and writing activities in the room. In the final step, an invasive species is from student magazines and textbooks.
  • SCI Grade 7 Invasive Species

    SCI Grade 7 Invasive Species

    Invasive Species: A Study of the Disruption of an Ecosystem’s Dynamics Life Science: Ecosystems, Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics, Grade 7 This unit engages students in an exploration of ecosystem dynamics as seen through the study of invasive species. The unit focuses on the effects of resource availability in an ecosystem and changes in biological or physical components of an ecosystem on organism populations. Students explore how invasive species are introduced and what impact they have on local food webs; and how ecosystems react to the introduction of invasive species. This unit is designed for students in grade 7, using research, models, data analysis, and writing about invasive species to understand changes in an ecosystem. This Model Curriculum Unit is designed to illustrate effective curriculum that lead to expectations outlined in the Draft Revised Science and Technology/Engineering Standards (www.doe.mass.edu/STEM/review.html) as well as the MA Curriculum Frameworks for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics. This unit includes lesson plans, a Curriculum Embedded Performance Assessment, and related resources. In using this unit it is important to consider the variability of learners in your class and make adaptations as necessary. This work is licensed by the MA Department of Elementary & Secondary Education under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). Educators may use, adapt, and/or share. Not for commercial use. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ July 2015 Page 1 of 77 This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell D.
  • Ecological Cascades Emanating from Earthworm Invasions

    Ecological Cascades Emanating from Earthworm Invasions

    502 REVIEWS Side- swiped: ecological cascades emanating from earthworm invasions Lee E Frelich1*, Bernd Blossey2, Erin K Cameron3,4, Andrea Dávalos2,5, Nico Eisenhauer6,7, Timothy Fahey2, Olga Ferlian6,7, Peter M Groffman8,9, Evan Larson10, Scott R Loss11, John C Maerz12, Victoria Nuzzo13, Kyungsoo Yoo14, and Peter B Reich1,15 Non- native, invasive earthworms are altering soils throughout the world. Ecological cascades emanating from these invasions stem from rapid consumption of leaf litter by earthworms. This occurs at a midpoint in the trophic pyramid, unlike the more familiar bottom- up or top- down cascades. These cascades cause fundamental changes (“microcascade effects”) in soil morphol- ogy, bulk density, and nutrient leaching, and a shift to warmer, drier soil surfaces with a loss of leaf litter. In North American temperate and boreal forests, microcascade effects can affect carbon sequestration, disturbance regimes, soil and water quality, forest productivity, plant communities, and wildlife habitat, and can facilitate other invasive species. These broader- scale changes (“macrocascade effects”) are of greater concern to society. Interactions among these fundamental changes and broader-scale effects create “cascade complexes” that interact with climate change and other environmental processes. The diversity of cascade effects, combined with the vast area invaded by earthworms, leads to regionally important changes in ecological functioning. Front Ecol Environ 2019; 17(9): 502–510, doi:10.1002/fee.2099 lthough society usually
  • 102: Trophic Dynamics

    102: Trophic Dynamics

    102: Trophic Dynamics CORY C CLEVELAND, ALAN R TOWNSEND AND DIANE M MCKNIGHT Institute of Arctic and Aipine Research, University of Coiorado, Bouider, CO, US The carbon (C) and water cycles are intimately linked in terrestrial ecosystems. Thus, an understanding of the processes regulating transfers of water in terrestrial ecosystems requires an understanding of the carbon cycle, and in particular, the factors constraining carbon movement in the soii-piant-atmo sphere continuum and through trophic levels in ecosystems. The linkages between the C and the water cycles are mediated primarily through biological processes, and are bidirectional in nature. For example, precipitation (and hence ecosystem water avaiiabiiity) strongly regulates plant growth and biogeochemicai cycling in soils. Subsequently, plant growth and soil biogeochemistry strongly influence evaporation and atmospheric water vapor (and hence precipitation). Plant growth and soil processes are also cyciicaiiy linked. Thus, plant and soil interactions can have important implications for water cycling. However, while major climatic variables (including precipitation) may drive biological patterns and processes at large scales, other ecological interactions also regulate both plant and soil processes. An appreciation of these ecological factors is important to understanding the relationship between C and water, and to predicting how global environmental change is likely to affect the interactions between the C and water cycles. INTRODUCTION ecosystems is fnndamental to onr nnderstanding of ecosys­ tem water balance, both at present and in the fntnre. From an ecological perspective, plant photosynthesis regn- lates the carbon balance and prodnctivity of the biosphere, PRIMARY PRODUCTION controls linxes of C between the biosphere and the atmo­ Gross Primary Production sphere, and is responsible for virtnally all of the biochemi­ In 1942, Lindeman ontlined the fnndamental ecological cal prodnction of organic matter.
  • Recruitment of Three Non-Native Invasive Plants Into a Fragmented Forest in Southern Illinois Emily D

    Recruitment of Three Non-Native Invasive Plants Into a Fragmented Forest in Southern Illinois Emily D

    Forest Ecology and Management 190 (2004) 119–130 Recruitment of three non-native invasive plants into a fragmented forest in southern Illinois Emily D. Yatesa, Delphis F. Levia Jr.b,*, Carol L. Williamsa aDepartment of Geography, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4514, USA bDepartment of Geography, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA Received 28 July 2003; received in revised form 10 September 2003; accepted 11 November 2003 Abstract Plant invasions are a current threat to biodiversity conservation, second only to habitat loss and fragmentation. Density and heights of three invasive plants, Rosa multiflora, Lonicera japonica, and Elaeagnus umbellata, were examined between edges and adjacent interiors of forest sites in southern Illinois. Density (stems mÀ2) and heights (cm) of invasive plants were obtained in plots along transects at edge and interior sampling locations within forest sites. The effect of species, sampling location, and site shape index on invasive plant density was investigated, as well as differences in heights of invasive plants in edge vs. interior sampling locations. Species, sampling location, and fragment shape index were significant factors influencing invasive plant density at study sites. Density for all three species ranged from 0 to 18 stems mÀ2. All three species invaded interiors of sites, however, R. multiflora and L. japonica had significantly greater densities in edge as opposed to interior transects. These two species also had significant differences in density among site shape indices. Density of E. umbellata was not significantly different between edge and interior sampling locations or among site shape indices. Mean heights of all three invasive plants were higher in edge transects, however, this relationship was only significant for L.
  • Effects of Nonindigenous Invasive Species on Water Quality and Quantity

    Effects of Nonindigenous Invasive Species on Water Quality and Quantity

    Effects of Nonindigenous Invasive Species on Water Quality and Quantity Frank H. McCormick1, Glen C. Contreras2, and Agency (EPA), more than one-third of all States have waters Sherri L. Johnson3 that are listed for invasive species under section 303d of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Nonindigenous species cause ecological damage, human health risks, or economic losses. Abstract Invasive species are degrading a suite of ecosystem services that the national forests and grasslands provide, including Physical and biological disruptions of aquatic systems recreational fishing, boating, and swimming; municipal, caused by invasive species alter water quantity and water industrial, and agricultural water supply; and forest products. quality. Recent evidence suggests that water is a vector for Degradation of these services results in direct economic the spread of Sudden Oak Death disease and Port-Orford- losses, costs to replace the services, and control costs. Losses, cedar root disease. Since the 1990s, the public has become damages, and control costs are estimated to exceed $178 billion increasingly aware of the presence of invasive species in annually (Daily et al. 2000a, 2000b). Although agriculture is the Nation’s waters. Media reports about Asian carp, zebra the segment of the economy most affected ($71 billion per mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), golden algae (Prynmesium year), costs to other segments, such as tourism, fisheries, and parvum), cyanobacteria (Anabaena sp., Aphanizomenon sp., water supply, total $67 billion per year. Although more difficult and Microcystis sp.), and New Zealand mud snail have raised to quantify, losses of these ecosystem functions also reduce public awareness about the economic and ecological costs of the quality of life.
  • Beltrami County

    Beltrami County

    2017 Beltrami County Lake Prioritization and Protection Planning Document RMBEL [Company22796 County name] Highway 6 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 1/1/2017 (218) 846-1465 www.rmbel.info Date: April 4, 2017 To: Beltrami County Environmental Services 701 Minnesota Ave NW # 113, Bemidji, MN 56601 Subject: Beltrami County Lake Prioritization and Planning Document From: Moriya Rufer RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc 22796 County Highway 6 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 218-846-1465 [email protected] www.rmbel.info Authors: Moriya Rufer, RMBEL, oversight and report Emelia Hauck, RMBEL, mapping and data analysis Andrew Weir, RMBEL, data analysis Acknowledgements Organization and oversight Brent Rud, Beltrami County Zach Gutknecht, Beltrami County Dan Steward, BWSR Jeff Hrubes, BWSR Funding provided by Board of Water and Soil Resources Beltrami County Organizations contributing data and information Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Beltrami County Red Lake Department of Natural Resources Beltrami County Lakes Summary 2017, RMB Environmental Laboratories 1 of 32 Table of Contents Beltrami County Data Assessment Summary Report Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Data Availability....................................................................................................................... 3 Trophic State Index ................................................................................................................
  • Long-Term Nutrient Enrichment Decouples Predator and Prey Production

    Long-Term Nutrient Enrichment Decouples Predator and Prey Production

    Long-term nutrient enrichment decouples predator and prey production John M. Davisa,1,2, Amy D. Rosemonda, Susan L. Eggertb, Wyatt F. Crossa,3, and J. Bruce Wallacec aOdum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; bUS Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Grand Rapids, MN 55744; and cDepartment of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 Edited by William Bowden, University of Vermont, and accepted by the Editorial Board November 23, 2009 (received for review July 28, 2009) Increased nutrient mobilization by human activities represents one amplify variability in predator–prey cycles and even extirpate of the greatest threats to global ecosystems, but its effects on predator populations (i.e., “the paradox of enrichment”) (9). ecosystem productivity can differ depending on food web structure. More recent models predict that nutrient enrichment can fur- When this structure facilitates efficient energy transfers to higher ther alter predator–prey interactions by increasing the dominance trophic levels, evidence from previous large-scale enrichments of predator-resistant primary consumers, diverting energy flow to suggests that nutrients can stimulate the production of multiple predator-resistant pathways that are relatively inaccessible to top trophic levels. Here we report results from a 5-year continuous predators (10, 11). Small-scale mesocosm experiments have nutrient enrichment of a forested stream that increased primary shown that such a reduction in trophic efficiency can ultimately consumer production, but not predator production. Because of decrease predator production, even with sustained increases in strong positive correlations between predator and prey production primary consumer productivity (i.e., resulting in a trophic decou- (evidence of highly efficient trophic transfers) under reference pling) (12, 13).
  • Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases

    Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases

    Invasive and Other Problematic Species, Genes and Diseases The threat category ‘invasive and other problematic species, genes and diseases’ (IUCN 8) includes both native and non-native plants, animals, pathogens, microbes, and genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. This definition encompasses a broad array of organisms, and the types of impacts to native species and habitats are equally variable. It includes invasive species that were not present in New Hampshire prior to European settlement, and have been directly or indirectly introduced and spread into the state by human activities. A variety of wildlife species are vulnerable to increased predation from both native and non-native animals. Many species are also affected by diseases and parasites, including white-nose syndrome in bats, fungal pathogens in reptiles, and ticks and nematodes in moose. Native and non-native insects act as forest pests, damaging or killing native tree species and causing significant changes to wildlife habitats. Native tree species can also be affected by non-native fungal pathogens. Invasive plants can compete with native species for nutrients, water and light, and can change the physical environment by altering soil chemistry. Risk Assessment Summary Invasive species affect all 24 habitats and 106 SGCN. This is second only to pollution in the number of species affected. The majority of threat assessment scores were ranked as low (n=116, 51%), followed by moderate (n = 83, 37%) and high (n = 26, 12%). Only the moderate and high-ranking threats are summarized for each category in Table 4-17.