CLARKSON UNIVERSITY Addressing Wetland Conservation Issues by Combining Remote Assessment with Intensive Field Sampling. A Dissertation By Kinga M. Stryszowska Institute for a Sustainable Environment Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Environmental Science and Engineering April 14, 2016 Accepted by the Graduate School _________________, ______________________________ Date Dean of Graduate School The undersigned have examined the thesis/dissertation entitled “Addressing wetland conservation issues by combining remote assessment with intensive, field sampling” presented by Kinga M. Stryszowska, a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Environmental Science and Engineering), and hereby certify that it is worthy of acceptance. ___________________ ________________________ Date Tom Langen, Ph.D. ___________________ ________________________ Date Michael Twiss, Ph.D. ___________________ ________________________ Date Michelle Crimi, Ph.D. ___________________ ________________________ Date Glenn Johnson, Ph.D. ___________________ ________________________ Date James Schulte, Ph.D. ii ABSTRACT Wetland ecosystems are delicate and unique systems providing services that are important to the ecological landscape. Wetlands in the United States have been experiencing a gradual degradation over the last two centuries and today a growing body of research is directed and understanding, protecting, and restoring these systems. The primary goal of this was to explore two methods of studying freshwater wetlands: a remote landscape level method and an intensive field sampling method to gain understanding of how each method can enhance the other. Field sampling is a traditional way of studying ecosystems and there is a considerable body of knowledge on various techniques, metrics, and indicators as they apply to wetlands. Remote sensing is a relatively new method of studying ecosystems that grew with the advancement of aerial photography and software capable of processing large data sets. In this dissertation Chapter I details a study comparing anuran, bird, fish, plant, and water quality metrics between 17 wetlands located in an environmentally degraded Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) and 10 natural reference wetlands. GIS landscape analysis was performed on all field sampled wetlands to discern some of the drivers of diversity differences between the two areas. The results indicated that whereas the AOC was not significantly different from reference sites in terms of ecological indicators, some landscape level components were significantly difference between the two areas. In Chapter II, a species distribution model (SDM) for the threatened Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) was performed using a combination of 14 years of field capture records and surrounding landscape variables. Using the mapping and analysis software ArcGIS, two types of models were constructed and validated: a generalized linear model (GLM) using presence/absence records and Maxent model using presence/background records. The results indicated that GLM was not as successful as Maxent at predicting habitat suitability for E. iii blandingii and that the range of the species is limited by factors related to elevation. In Chapter III correlation analyses were performed on three levels of wetland bioassessment methods; remote sensing, rapid assessment, and exhaustive field sampling, to determine the level of overlap between these methods. Results indicated that some higher effort (Level Three) metric correlated strongly and significantly with lower effort (Level One) metrics suggesting that one Level could replace another if needed. When studying wetlands, it is evident that a combination of traditional field sampling methods and modern remote sensing methods provides the best assessment of the integrity of the wetland ecosystem. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Over the past five years I have received support and encouragement from a great number of individuals. I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my advisor Dr. Tom A. Langen. He has been my sounding board, my cheerleader, my mentor, and ultimately a great friend. I would like to thank my graduate committee of Dr. Michael Twiss, Dr. Glenn Johnson, Dr. Michelle Crimi, and Dr. James Schulte for their insightful comments and direction as I moved through the process of developing my ideas. Thank you to all my field technicians without whom this research would have stood still:, Jon Podoliak, Jeremy Ozolins, Kate Gilpin, Lorianny Rivera, Mitchell Laughlin, Amy Hait, and Stephen Kelso. I would also like to acknowledge the St. Lawrence River Research and Education Fund, Northern New York Audubon, the Joseph and Joan Cullman Conservation Foundation, the New York State Wetland Forum and the Clarkson University Department of Biology for providing funding in support of my research and education. A special thank you is due to my friends Catherine Benson, Stefanie Kring, Angelena Ross, Brendan Carberry, and Reshica Baral. Their company, conversation, laughter, and encouragement have made my graduate career a true pleasure. Last but not least, I would like to express deep gratitude to my family: my fiancé Nathaniel Hill for his patience, unwavering support, and unconditional love, my daughter Lila Hazel Hill for giving me the best reason to strive to be a female role model, to my parents Dana and Stanley Stryszowski, and brothers Lukas and Tom Stryszowski for always believing that I can achieve anything I set out to do, and to my sisters Martyna Zmijewska and Melissa Hazlett for being there with a smile and a cheer every step of the long way. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ xii INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 References ................................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER I: Evaluating Beneficial Use Impairments in Wetlands of the Massena Area of Concern Using Biotic, Water Quality, and Landscape Indicators. ...........................................7 Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Keywords .................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Site Description ......................................................................................................................10 Indicators of Wetland Habitat Quality and Wildlife Population Status .................................12 Biotic Indicators................................................................................................................. 13 Indices of biotic integrity (IBI) .......................................................................................... 16 Water quality indicators .................................................................................................... 17 Landscape analysis ............................................................................................................ 19 Data analysis ..........................................................................................................................19 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 20 Biotic indicators .....................................................................................................................21 vi Birds ................................................................................................................................... 21 Fish .................................................................................................................................... 22 Anurans .............................................................................................................................. 23 Vascular Plants .................................................................................................................. 23 Water Quality .........................................................................................................................24 Landscape ...............................................................................................................................24 Selection of Reference Sites ....................................................................................................26