Evaluation of the Basis and Effectiveness of Habitat Assessments in Wetland Functional Assessment Methods
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
AuthorGardner, Amy Elizabeth
KeywordWetland Assessment Methods
Habitat Assessment Technique
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractI studied the basis and effectiveness of wetland assessment methods in providing habitat assessments. While it is well understood that wetlands and riparian areas provide important ecological functions and habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species, much is still to be learned about providing meaningful, accurate and repeatable methods for assessing them. I examined and evaluated four assessment methods to determine their accuracy and usefulness in assessing a site's provision of habitat. One hypothesis I tested is that if the assessment methods studied provide an accurate assessment of wetland functions, then the resulting site scores for the methods should be correlated. The second hypothesis is that there is a correlation between the site scores and an independent measure of function, specifically the number of riparian-associated bird and butterfly species observed at each site. Biological and physical data collected from 47 riparian sites in California's Central Valley were used to calculate site scores using Habitat Assessment Technique (HAT), Rocky Mountain Riparian Hydrogeomorphic (HGM), Southern California Riparian Model, and Reference Wetland assessment methods. The rankings of these site scores were also calculated for each method. Correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between the site scores of the four methods, as well as between the site scores and the numbers of riparian-associated bird and butterfly species for each plot. The site scores were mostly uncorrelated. Only one statistically significant correlation was demonstrated between the site scores for the Southern California Riparian Model and Reference Wetland methods (df = 46, r = 0.46, p = 0.00103, with Bonferroni correction). With Bonferroni corrections (p < 0.00625), the site scores were also uncorrelated with the numbers of riparian-associated bird and butterfly species. Without Bonferroni corrections, only two statistically significant correlations were demonstrated: between the number of riparian-associated bird species and the HAT score (df = 46, r = 0.37, p = 0.0095) and the number of riparian-associated butterfly species and the Reference Wetland score (df = 46, r = 0.38, p = 0.0092). I rejected both original hypotheses, which demonstrated that the assessment tools currently available do not consistently produce relatively precise, or reproducible results. Possible reasons for these problems include attempting to assess a function that is too broadly defined, inappropriately or subjectively selected variables, subjectively assigning values to variables, or inappropriately selecting reference sites. The existing attempts at assessing wetland or riparian function are important steps in the right direction toward assessment of wetland and riparian sites and achievement of "no net loss," but functional assessment must be considered a work in progress.
DescriptionRepository staff redacted information not essential to the integrity of this thesis to protect privacy.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Student-Engaged Assessment-A Meta-Analysis of EL Assessment PracticesTownsend, Lee Ann; Cornue, Joshua; The College at Brockport (5/13/2015)In an era in which standardized tests are receiving increased attention, low-performing schools are often eligible for increased financial and professional support, intended to improve student achievement. Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) models are gaining popularity across the nation, and Expeditionary Learning (EL) is an example of one such model. The meta-analysis examined EL’s Core Practices for Assessment, which guide EL schools in developing and maintaining a balanced assessment program focused on student-engaged assessment, assessment for learning strategies, and effective use of both formative and summative assessment data. The current study captures the collection, analysis, and synthesis of professional materials regarding each of the Core Practices and sub-practices to determine the potential benefits of their implementation. Analysis suggests that education professionals are, in general, in support of student-engaged assessment practices. Limitations and implications are discussed.
A Survey of Audiences for Reading Assessment: One District’s Needs and Methods of Assessment and Its Profile of a Good ReaderSmith, Arthur; Schubert, Margaret McHugh; The College at Brockport (7/1/1993)Teachers and residents in one small school district were surveyed to determine their needs for reading assessments, the methods of assessment they thought would best meet those needs, and their opinions on what is needed in order to read well. Results showed that both groups use assessment primarily to monitor student progress and to identify student strengths and weaknesses. Teachers also use assessments to plan instruction, strategies and activities. The two methods of assessment that the majority of respondents thought would best meet their assessment needs were individual assessment of reading performance and daily observation with frequent anecdotal records. Respondents cited 93 different criteria for reading well, with all but eight corresponding to factors cited by experts and researchers as influencing reading proficiency. Results indicated agreement between the two groups across all three topics and implied a support for whole-language instruction and alternative, perhaps authentic, assessment.
An analysis of language difficulties in Algebra I (Common core) assessments versus integrated Algebra assessmentsSpoth, Amy (State University of New York College at Fredonia, 2016-05)The purpose of this study was to determine if the difficult linguistic features of mathematics assessments correspond to teachers' perceptions of the assessments. A mixed methods research design was used in order to analyze the linguistic features of each exam and also gain insight to how teachers feel about the assessments. The assessments analyzed in this study were the June 2008 Integrated Algebra Examination and the 2015 Algebra I (Common Core) Assessment. In addition to comparing linguistic features of the two assessments, interviews were conducted. Two teachers were interviewed in one school district. The results of the data collection indicated that while the Algebra I (Common Core) Assessment contained more difficult linguistic features in fourteen of the sixteen categories, readability tests showed the Integrated Algebra Examination is written at a higher reading and grade level. The results of the interviews concluded that while students may struggle with linguistically difficult features in mathematics, there are strategies which may be incorporated into instruction in order to help these students overcome these challenges. Some of these strategies may include practice reading texts with difficult linguistic features in mathematics classrooms, explicitly teaching students how to separate mathematics and language, and collaborating with other teachers to determine what strategies may work best for your students. [from abstract]