Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Exhibit Hall, Oregon Convention Center
Sigrid D.P. Smith1, David Allan1, Peter B. McIntyre2, Ben Halpern3, Greg Boyer4, Andy Buchsbaum5, Allen Burton1, Linda Campbell6, W. Lindsay Chadderton7, Jan J.H. Ciborowski8, Patrick J. Doran9, Tim Eder10, Dana Infante11, Lucinda B. Johnson12, Christine A. Joseph1, Adrienne L. Marino1, Jen Read13, Ed Rutherford14, Scott Sowa9 and Alan D. Steinman15, (1)School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, (2)Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, (3)National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, (4)College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY, (5)National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, MI, (6)School of Environmental Studies, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS, (7)The Nature Conservancy c/o Center for Aquatic Conservation, Notre Dame, IN, (8)Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, (9)The Nature Conservancy, Lansing, MI, (10)Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, (11)Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, (12)Center for Water and the Environment, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN, (13)Michigan Sea Grant, Ann Arbor, MI, (14)NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI, (15)Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University, Muskegon, MI
Background/Question/Methods
The Great Lakes are subject to multiple stressors, and assessing their impacts is challenging when these stressors have different spatial distributions and their impacts vary among habitats. The ability to map the presence or intensity of individual stressors across the Great Lakes, weight individual stressors for their impact, and combine multiple stressors into an integrated total impact map could significantly enhance our ability to manage and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. Here, we report results based on 34 individual stressor layers mapped at a 1-km2 resolution across the surface of the five Great Lakes, and we evaluate levels of cumulative stress at locations where lake-derived ecosystem services are present (e.g., recreation, food, biodiversity protection). Individual stressors represent seven broad categories, including climate change, invasive species, coastal development, land runoff, and chemicals of concern.
Results/Conclusions
Overall, cumulative stress is higher in nearshore than offshore waters and in the lower lakes (particularly Lakes Erie and Ontario). However, no location is without human influence from widespread stressors such as climate change, invasive species and nitrogen deposition. Locations providing ecosystem services are disproportionately proximate to areas of high stress. This effort, modeled upon recent global threat analyses for marine waters and rivers, will facilitate prioritizing restoration and conservation actions throughout the Great Lakes region.