The links below provide an outline of the material for this lesson. Be sure to carefully read through the entire lesson before returning to Canvas to submit your assignments.
In this lesson, you will learn how to define and classify waters (aquatic ecosystems) in your geographic vicinity using regional, national and/or international classification systems. For Assignment 4.1, each student will choose two aquatic classification systems that they want to explore, which will allow a comparison between them. Using the two selected classification systems, you will locate and classify five aquatic features, then prepare a 3-5 page report. A sample report is available to guide you in the preparation of your report.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
This lesson is one week in length. Please refer to the Course Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates. To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below.
Requirements | Assignment Details | Access/Directions |
---|---|---|
To Do | Read the Overview section and work through the material of Lesson 4. | You are on the overview page of the Lesson 4 online content now. Use the links at the bottom of the page or the Lessons menu to proceed to the next page. |
To Read |
Classification System Resources:
|
This list of resources can be used to help identify the classification system(s) you may want to use to complete the assignment for Lesson 4. — Skim each resource as needed.
Registered students can access the resources under Lesson 4 in Canvas. |
To Do |
Use a regional, national, and/or international classification system (see resources listed above) to prepare a 3-5 page report in which you define and classify aquatic ecosystems in your geographic vicinity using regional, national, and/or international classification systems. |
Submit your report using the Assignment 4.1 - Classifying Aquatic Ecosystems drop box under Lesson 4 in Canvas. |
If you have any questions, please post them to our Questions? discussion forum located under Orientation and Resources in Canvas. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses if you, too, are able to help out a classmate.
In general, the more one augments the number of divisions of the productions of nature, the more one approaches the truth, since in nature only individuals exist, while genera, orders, and classes only exist in our imagination.Comte Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788)
French naturalist, author, artist Histoire Naturelle (1749),
trans. by John Lyon, The 'Initial Discourse' to Buffon's
Histoire Naturelle: The First Complete English Translation,
Journal of the History of Biology, 9(1), 1976, 164.
No classification system can capture effectively all of the inherent variability in natural systems, nor can it provide a foolproof determination given the different experiences of users. Most classification systems used internationally or regionally are designed to distinguish among major types aquatic ecosystems with recognizable differences. Some are directed at a specific type, such as wetlands or streams, but many are designed to address all fresh and marine waters for the geographic area of interest. The following classification systems, although focused on wetlands, address a broader set of aquatic ecosystems (Cowardin et al. 1979, Brinson 1993, Warner and Rubec 1997, Ramsar 2009, 2013, Brooks et al. 2011). Whatever the intent and potential use of the classification system, it is critical that users consider the landscape and hydrologic contexts of each type. How large an area is being classified? A river channel and the associated floodplain on both sides of the channel, or just the wetland associated within a property on the upland edge of a floodplain? Context really matters, and should be carefully and succinctly documented.
When seeking to classify a body of water, the most fundamental question the user must ask is, ’How was it formed?” which can be stated as, “What is the origin of this body of water?” If this question is thoughtfully answered and described in a brief narrative, then the actual label assigned to the type matters less, because the user will have considered where and how the water fits in a given landscape and hydrologic setting. Obviously, this is more relevant for regions where aquatic ecosystems do not form the dominant matrix of a landscape (e.g., coastal salt marshes, bottomland hardwood forests). For example, is it a depression that is isolated during drier times of the year, but located in a floodplain setting? Or is it isolated from all riverine influences, receiving only a combination of groundwater and precipitation? Clearly, these types of wetland depressions are distinctively different in many of their attributes and functions, but they could have the same morphometric dimensions.
Many waters have characteristics of multiple types, warranting a dual label (e.g., depression/slope) just as National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping for the U.S. recognizes mixed vegetation classes (e.g., forested/scrub-shrub, FO/SS). Thus, it is important to recognize these distinctive elements and document the reasons for labeling the water as a specific type. This is especially important when addressing types that occur along a broad hydrologic gradient and when a group of microhabitats occur in a cluster. Thoughtful selection of classes supported by careful documentation will make any classification system more consistent among users (Brooks et al. 2011).
Explore and use National Wetlands Inventory [1] (NWI) (accessed 6-21-14) with the Wetland Mapper feature.
To complete Assignment 4.1, you will choose two aquatic classification systems —that you want to explore— which will allow a comparison between them, and classify five aquatic features (i.e., wetlands, river, lake, estuary, etc.), which occur in an area you designate (e.g., ecoregion, state, county, etc.). It might be best to do this in an area with which you are familiar, or even better, one you can physically visit, so you can view and explore the wet places you are classifying. The Reference Materials page of this lesson lists a number of readings that describe some common classification systems. Alternative classification systems are available for geographic regions outside the U.S. - Please contact instructor.
The intent, then, is to use the NWI’s Wetland Mapper to zoom in on an area of your choosing, locate five aquatic features, and either record their designated type, or preferably, try to classify them yourself. If you use Cowardin et al. (1979), which is featured in the Wetland Mapper, then record the types for your five features, and then reclassify them using an alternative system (e.g, Brinson, Ramsar, etc.). If you live outside the U.S., or wish to classify systems elsewhere, then use Google Earth (or Google Maps [2], clicking on the “Earth” button in the lower left to reveal aerial imagery) to locate an area, zoom in to view and choose five aquatic features, and then classify them based on two of the systems mentioned.
You can compare among more than two systems if you so choose. It is suggested that students from the U.S. choose to compare the Cowardin et al. (1979) system, which is widely used, and the system used for NWI mapping, with the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) system of either Brinson (1993, freshwater types only for the U.S.) or Brooks et al. (2011, fresh and marine types of the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S.). Other systems recommended include Ramsar 2009 (suitable for worldwide use) or Warner and Rubec (1997) for Canada.
You should read through the listed manual, document, or web instructions for each of the systems you choose to become familiar with the terminology, and how the classification system works. Most are hierarchical. That is, you start with the most general (e.g., system for Cowardin et al. 1979, class for Brinson 1993 or Ramsar 2009/2013), and move down through increasingly detailed subclasses. Note that many of the systems use terms that may seem unusual – riverine upper perennial is used in NWI to indicate a headwater stream and wetland. This is to avoid using local terms that are not universally known by most people. For example, vernal pool (a small pond used for breeding by some species of amphibian) can be called or labeled as a “temporary pond” or “isolated depression”, with a hydrologic modifier such as “ephemeral” or “seasonal” (because many of them dry out during the summer or dry season), and a vegetation designation of “forested” or “emergent” (the latter being grass-like plants that emerge above the surface of the water).
To get started with Wetlands Mapper of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI):
You can choose an area in several ways. You can provide an address, landmark, or latitude-longitude (fill in FIND LOCATION box in upper right), but it is easiest to use the zoom bar on the left, and then click and drag on the map to locate your area of interest. Once you are in the vicinity, you can click on the Available Layers on the right to highlight features of interest. SPOILER ALERT: The default layer is wetlands, so when you zoom in, you will see the type label. If you would rather try to classify the visible types yourself, click off the wetlands layer first, then click it on later to check your results.
If you want some assistance initially, I recommend just using the default wetlands option, but riparian areas can also be selected (this is a relatively new addition to the system, and will not appear in the original Cowardin et al. (1979) reference). If you do click on the wetlands option, and zoom in close enough, you will see the type designation chosen by the aerial photo-interpreter. They have essentially already done your work for you. There is, however, more to learn about the code and characteristics behind it. Click on any of the code, and it will provide additional data and an explanation (see Figure 4.1 below).
Remember, you still need to classify the five features you chose using another system. Once you choose your area of interest, you should take a screen shot and convert it to a JPEG file that you can label with the types for the two systems (see Fig. 2 in SAMPLE). You should also make a comparison table in your assignment report (see SAMPLE ASSIGNMENT – 4.1 Brooks, R. - Classifying Aquatic Ecosystems). The report should be 3-5 pages, with graphics.
Description | Full points | Partial points | No points | Points total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Classification system | 2 aquatic classification systems are discussed. | Only 1 aquatic classification system is discussed. | No aquatic classification systems are discussed. | 5 |
Aquatic features | All features are appropriately classified. | 2-3 features are misclassified. | 3+ features are misclassified. | 5 |
Content | Detailed comparison of the two classification systems that demonstrates an understanding of their similarities and differences. | An overview of each classification system is provided. However, details on similarities and differences are either vague or missing. | No comparison or discussion about the two classification systems. | 10 |
College-level writing | No grammar or spelling mistakes. Content is organized well. | 2-3 grammar or spelling mistakes. Flow and organization of content could be improved. | 3+ grammar or spelling mistakes. Content does not flow and is unorganized. | 5 |
Citations | Included a complete works cited page. All information is in the student’s own words and appropriately cited. | Works cited page is incomplete. Some information is not written in the student’s own words. | Works cited page is incomplete or missing. Most information is not written in the student’s own words. | 5 |
Please submit your 3-5 page report using the Assignment 4.1 - National Wetland Inventory drop box under Lesson 4 in Canvas. (See the Calendar in Canvas for specific due dates.)
You should consider using any or all of the following materials when working on the assignment for Lesson 4. (Registered students can access all of the following reference materials under Lesson 4 in Canvas.)
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 79pp+app
Brinson, M.M. 1996. The HGM approach explained. National Wetlands Newsletter November/December 17(6):7-13.
Brooks, RP, MM Brinson, KJ Havens, CS Hershner, RD Rheinhardt, DH Wardrop, DF Whigham, AD Jacobs, and JM Rubbo. 2011. Proposed hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands of the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA. Wetlands 31(2):207-219.
Brooks, RP, MM Brinson, DH Wardrop, and JA Bishop. 2013. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification, inventory, and reference wetlands. Pages 39-59, Chapter 2 in RP Brooks and DH Wardrop (eds.) Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in science, management, policy, and practice. Springer Science+Business Media, 491+xiv pp.
Cowardin, LM, V Carter, FC Golet, and ET LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FW/OBS-79/31, Washington, DC.
Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 108 pp.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2009. Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). [Note: The classification for Ramsar wetlands begins on page 64 of the documented cited.]
or
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2013. The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 6th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. [Note: The classification for Ramsar wetlands begins on page 55 of the documented cited.]
Warner, BG, and CDA Rubec (eds.). 1997. The Canadian wetland classification system. 2nd ed. Wetlands Research Centre. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
By locating and classifying 5 waterbodies, hopefully in a geographic area familiar to you, you will have gained some familiarity with the art and science of classifying hydrological and ecological features. As in many inventory and assessment methods, there are elements of human intuition involved, regardless of how precisely the classification criteria are presented. With some practice, however, multiple users of a system can converge on identifying types, and thus provide consistency. Through this exercise, you have gained some experience using the major classification schemes for aquatic ecosystems in the U.S., and/or around the world.
You have reached the end of Lesson 4! Double check the to-do list on the Lesson 4 Overview page [5] to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 5.