Hi,
Wondering if any iNat folks use the universal fqa calculator here and if experiencing any problems accessing databases…or maybe any iNat folks in the know if this tool has experienced a funding/sponsorship/server problem? I have not been able to access it beyond my own transects for a few weeks now.
In the interim, any other FQA tools folks know about for verifying C-values or wetness coefficients?
Thanks!
Peter
Interesting concept. I’ve been retired as a professional ecologist for 14 years but had never heard of an FQA. My mind races when trying to imagine creating coefficients of conservation for the 5,000+ plant taxa in Texas, and its application to disturbance-dependant habitats. I need to read more about FQAs.
Most databases seem to be organized around a specific ecoregion rather than statewide. I’m unsure as to how the data is analyzed other that to say most C-values I encounter seem to coincide with my own (limited) knowledge. I find it to be a very useful tool as a landscape designer in pitching conservation and placemaking to reluctant clients.
In any case, the website appears to be working again.
I do use CoC for my work in Vermont, we have our own set of numbers and find those work better than the newer ‘universal’ one. It’s an interesting concept and can be powerful but also has some weaknesses - for instance you can only compare with like ecosystems. The worst condition bog gets a higher score than the best condition floodplain forest, etc. We have found that straight average CoC from a species list, or sometimes weighted by species cover, works better at indicating wetland ecosystem condition than some of the more complex ones that integrate species richness. But it may work differently in different places. We use wetness coefficients too, they can be useful in assessing whether wetland restoration projects worked in restoring hydrology as well as monitoring how climate change influences moisture level in ecosystems. However, most of the wetness indeces in the USA are anchored on the Army Corps wetland indeces for plant species, which can be pretty flawed in some cases. We have our own index for internal use, but just informally.
The website includes many different/individual datasets of CoCs, e.g. Chicago Region, certain EPA regions, Dakotas, etc. There isn’t a universal list of CoCs on the site. Have you found a universal dataset somewhere? Seems like an impossible task and I’d be interested to see what it is haha
i suppose by ‘universal’ i mean the ones that NatureServe created in the Northeast which attempted to differentiate by ecoregion rather than state (which makes sense). I was supposed to be on the committee to help assign scores but wasn’t able to go because of personal life reasons i am still mad about, heh. For whatever reason (i don’t really believe it’s due to lack of my presence) it doesn’t correlate as well with our othre indeces of disturbance, compared with our older CoC that was created for Vermont by Art Gilman. I don’t think one cound create a truly universal one since plants behave so differently in different environments - for instance Balsam fir is a peatland specialist at the southern end of its range but a generalist that likes disturbance as you go further north.
I haven’t used the calculator website though because i have my own wonky Access and Excel sheets that allow me to calculate the biocriteria along with some i have made up on my own for other environmental correlates. Plus you know, taxonomy stuff.
Yeah Ive always interpreted the “universal” on this particular site to mean “all existing databases in the same place,” and not “the standard by which all ecological knowledge is measured”
The calculator tool is useful if you aren’t professionally trained but have enough street smarts to get some kind of baseline for a site. Most private property owners are unaware and uninterested until you show them some rare orchid growing in their mosquito pond. I would not recommend it to professional ecologists, though I believe some do use it.
One advantage is that it can remove some subjectivity to assessment of one particular ecosystem. Yes there is sobjectivity as to what numbers each plant is assigned, but at any given site, you can generate a FQA index or average CoC based only on the species list and not on anything else, that says something about the ecosystem. if you say ‘this bulldozing is harming this wetland’ people say it’s subjective or not provable, but if you can document a decline in CoC scores you can show that an index not linked just to that wetland shows an impact. If that makes any sense at all.
I’m curious what you mean by the differentiation between professionals and nonprofessionals here.
Someone being paid specifically for their expertise in ecology substantiated by an advanced degree.
To clarify, I’m curious why you think professionals should not use coefficients of conservatism (or if you meant something else).
yeah, it’s an odd statement to make. A lot of ‘professional’ ecologists use them. They aren’t perfect by any means but there isn’t any other index i know of that works better. Richness-based models seem universally worse when looking at condition, since disturbed sites can be very rich in (ruderal) native species. I think the biggest issue with CoC is that the numbers used may not actually be correct, and some species (like red maple, which will just grow any old place, disturbed or not) just shouldnt get a CoC code at all.
I meant specifically using the universalFQA website as a resource. Useful but not necessarily authoratative. Minor critique. Everyone can do what they want.
PWF
yeah i use FQA metrics for ecology but don’t use that website, i calculate them myself.
