Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Properties and performance of the Floristic Quality Index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands

  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) has been proposed as a tool that can be used to identify areas of high conservation value, monitor sites over time, assess the anthropogenic impacts affecting an area, and measure the ecological condition of an area. FQI is based on the Coefficient of Conservatism (C), which is a numerical score assigned to each plant species in a local flora, primarily from best professional judgment, that reflects the likelihood that a species is found in natural habitats. FQI is computed by multiplying the mean Coefficient of Conservatism (C) by the square root of species richness for an observational unit. Great Lakes coastal wetlands were used to assess the properties and performance of various species richness, Coefficient of Conservatism, and Floristic Quality indices, as well as compare C-value assignments from two U.S. states (Wisconsin and Michigan). FQI and species richness increased with sampling area according to a power function, but C more or less remained constant. Sampling schemes should therefore focus on controlling sampling area and minimally sampling each community type at a site. In some cases, Wisconsin and Michigan assigned different values of C to the same species, highlighting possible effects due to the somewhat subjective nature of C-value assignment. Coefficient of Conservatism and Floristic Quality indices were better at discriminating differences between sites, independent of a condition gradient, than species richness alone, but neither index type outperformed the other. Both types of indices were also found to be acceptable ecological indicators of condition, although Floristic Quality indices consistently outperformed Coefficient of Conservatism indices in this capacity. Regardless of the subjectivity involved with the assignment of C-values and that ‘floristic quality’ is a human concept and not a true ecosystem property, both Coefficient of Conservatism and Floristic Quality indices seem to be effective indicators of condition in Great Lakes coastal wetland

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Andreas, B. K. and R. W. Lichvar. 1995. Floristic index for establishing assessment standards: a case study for northern Ohio. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Technical Report WRP-DE-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. Journal of Ecology 9: 95–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1997. ASTM E 1923, Standard Guide for Sampling Terrestrial and Wetlands Vegetation. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, B. L., M. R. Walbridge, and A. Aldous. 1999. Patterns in nutrient availability and plant diversity of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology 80: 2151–2169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernthal, T. W. 2003. Development of a floristic quality assessment methodology for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Madison, WI, USA. PUB-SS-986 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdaghs, M. 2004. Properties and performance of the floristic quality index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. J., S. Carstenn, and C. R. Lane. 2004. Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh condition in Florida. Ecological Applications 14: 784–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, V. H. and S. C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1: 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danz, N. P., R. R. Regal, G. J. Niemi, V. Brady, T. Hollenhorst, L. B. Johnson, G. E. Host, J. M. Hanowski, C. Johnston, T. Brown, J. Kingston, and J. R. Kelly. 2005. Environmentally stratified sampling design for the development of Great Lakes environmental indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 102: 41–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Detenbeck, N. E., S. M. Galatowitsch, J. Atkinson, and H. Ball. 1999. Evaluating perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. Wetlands 19: 789–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennessy, S., M. Gernes, J. Mack, and D. H. Wardrop. 2001. Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA. EPA 903-R-003-003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fore, L. S. 2003. Developing biological indicators: lessons learned from mid-Atlantic streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information and MidAtlantic Integrated Assessment Program, Region 3, Ft. Meade, MD, USA. EPA 903-R-003-003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C. M., M. J. W. Austen, J. M. Bowles, and W. B. Draper. 2000. Assessing floristic quality in southern Ontario woodlands. Natural Areas Journal 20: 66–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19: 733–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjcacent Canada, second edition. New York Botanical Garden, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdendorf, C. E., S. M. Hartley, and M. D. Barnes (eds.). 1981. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands within the United States, Vol. 1: overview. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. FWS/OBS-81/02-vl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, K. D., L. A. Masters, M. P. Penskar, A. A. Reznicek, G. S. Wilhelm, W. W. Brodovich, and K. P. Gardiner. 2001. Floristic quality assessment with wetland categories and examples of computer applications for the state of Michigan, second edition. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program, In partnership with U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, East Lansing, MI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudon, C. 1997. Impact of water level fluctuations on St. Lawrence River aquatic vegetation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2853–2865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. E., J. C. Kurtz, and W. S. Fisher (eds.). 2000. Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. EPA 620 R-99 005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurik, T. W., S. C. Wang, and A. G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment load on seedling emergence from wetland seed banks. Wetlands 14: 159–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec, R. H. and F. B. Bevis. 1990. Wetlands and wastewater: Kinross, Michigan. Wetlands 10: 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keddy, P. A. and A. A. Reznicek. 1986. Great Lakes vegetation dynamics: the role of fluctuating water levels and buried seeds. Journal of Great Lakes Research 12: 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton, R. A. 1979. The structure of species abundance and measurement of diversity. Biometrics 35: 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keough, J. R., T. A. Thompson, G. R. Guntenspergen, and D. A. Wilcox. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19: 821–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kercher, S. M., C. B. Frieswyk, and J. B. Zedler. 2003. Effects of sampling teams and estimation methods on the assessment of plant cover. Journal of Vegetation Science 14: 899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, J. E., Jr., C. A. Carpenter, S. L. Hooks, F. G. Koeneg, W. H. McNab, W. Russell, and M. L. Smith. 1995. Ecological units of the eastern United States: first approximation. Map (scale 1:3,500,000). U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Atlanta, GA, USA. Technical Publication R8-TP 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, D. 1993. The Missouri floristic quality assessment system. The Nature Conservancy, St. Louis, MO, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, R. D. and M. S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12: 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, J. J. 2004. Integrated Wetland Assessment Program Part 4: Vegetation index of biotic integrity (VIBI) and tiered aquatic life uses (TALUs) for Ohio wetlands. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Group, Columbus, OH, USA. Technical Report WET/2004-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. W. 2003. Assessment of the floristic quality index for use in Illinois, USA, wetlands. Natural Areas Journal 23: 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, L. and D. Wilcox. 1997. State of the lakes ecosystem conference 1996 background paper: Coastal wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, USA. EPA 905-R97-01 5b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensing, D. M., S. M. Galatowitsch, and J. R. Tester. 1998. Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal of Environmental Management 53: 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortsch, L. D. 1998. Assessing the impact of climate change on the Great Lakes shoreline wetlands. Climatic Change 40: 391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mushet, D. M., N. H. Euliss, Jr., and T. H. Shaffer. 2002. Floristic quality assessment of one natural and three restored wetland complexes in North Dakota, USA. Wetlands 22: 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGPFQAP (Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel). 2001. Coefficients of conservatism for the vascular flora of the Dakotas and adjacent grasslands. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, USA. Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2001-001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. A. 2001. Long-term change in Wisconsin lake plant communities. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, G. J. and M. E. McDonald. 2004. Application of Ecological Indicators. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, M. J., W. D. Bakowsky, and D. A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otte, M. L. 2001. What is stress to a wetland plant? Environmental and Experimental Botany 46: 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poling, T. C., M. G. Banker, and L. M. Jablonski. 2003. Quadratlevel floristic quality index reflects shifts in composition of a restored tallgrass prairie (Ohio). Ecological Restoration 21: 144–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport, D. J., H. A. Regier, and T. C. Hutchinson. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. American Naturalist 125: 617–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, T. P. and D. A. Rogers. 2002. The modified floristic quality index. Natural Areas Journal 22: 340–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothrock, P. E. 2004. Floristic quality assessment in Indiana: the concept, use, and development of coefficients of conservatism. Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Quality, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Final report for ARN A305-4-53, EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanzone, S. and A. McElroy (eds.). 1998. Ecological impacts and evaluation criteria for the use of structures in marsh management. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, Marsh Management Subcommittee, Washington, DC, USA. EPA-S AB-EPEC-98-003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swink, F. A. and G. S. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region, fourth edition. Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft, J. B., G. S. Wilhelm, D. M. Ladd, and L. A. Masters. 1997. Floristic quality assessment for vegetation in Illinois: a method for assessing vegetation integrity. Erigenia 15: 3–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufford, D. L., H. N. McKellar, Jr., and J. R. Hussey. 1998. Instream nonpoint source nutrient prediction with land-use proximity and seasonality. Journal of Environmental Quality 27: 100–111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, E. G. 1972. Michigan Flora: a Guide to the Identification and Occurrence of the Native and Naturalized Seed Plants of the State —Part I Gymnosperms and Monocots. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomington Hills, MI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, E. G. 1985. Michigan Flora: a Guide to the Identification and Occurrence of the Native and Naturalized Seed Plants of the State —Part II Dicots (Saururaceae-Cornaceae). Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomington Hills, MI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, E. G. 1996. Michigan Flora: a Guide to the Identification and Occurrence of the Native and Naturalized Seed Plants of the State —Part III Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomington Hills, MI, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, H. G. 1984. Diversity, biotic, and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Resources 18: 653–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, D. A., J. E. Meeker, P. L. Hudson, B. J. Armitage, M. G. Black, and D. G. Uzarski. 2002. Hydrologic variability and the application of index of biotic integrity metrics to wetlands: a Great Lakes evaluation. Wetlands 22: 588–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, G. S. 1977. Ecological assessment of open land areas in Kane County, Illinois. Kane County Urban Development, Geneva, IL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michael Bourdaghs

    Present address: Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, 55155, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Water and the Environment Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, 5013 Miller Trunk Highway, 55811, Duluth, Minnesota, USA

    Michael Bourdaghs

  2. Center for Biocomplexity Studies, South Dakota State University, Box 2202, 57007, Brookings, South Dakota, USA

    Carol A. Johnston

  3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 10 University Drive, 55804, Duluth, Minnesota, USA

    Ronald R. Regal

Authors
  1. Michael Bourdaghs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carol A. Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald R. Regal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bourdaghs, M., Johnston, C.A. & Regal, R.R. Properties and performance of the Floristic Quality Index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26, 718–735 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[718:PAPOTF]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[718:PAPOTF]2.0.CO;2

Key Words

Search

Navigation