Comparisons across Assessment Levels
Significant correlations were found among the Levels 1–3
assessment procedures. The correlation between the Level 1
LDI index and Level 2 WRAP assessment methods were
significantly correlated (Spearman’s r = )0.84, P < 0.001)
(Fig. 3). Negative correlation values result from the inverse
scaling of the two assessment procedures, where the LDI
scale ranged from 1 to10, with 1 representing the reference
standard condition, and the WRAP scale ranged from 0 to
1, with 1 representing the reference standard condition.
LDI scores for emergent wetlands ranged from 1 to 6. LDI
scores for forested wetlands ranged from 1 to 8.
Correlations between the Level 1 LDI and the Level 3
FWCI assessment methods were also significant. The algal
assemblage showed significant correlations for both emergent
(Spearman’s r = )0.71, P < 0.001) and forested
(Spearman’s r = )0.62, P < 0.001) wetlands (Fig. 4). The
negative correlation coefficient reflects the reversed scaling
of the LDI and FWCI assessments. The macrophyte FWCI had the strongest correlation with LDI for both emergent
(Spearman’s r = )0.75, P < 0.001) and forested (Spearman’s
r = )0.68, P < 0.001) wetlands (Fig. 4). The macroinvertebrate
FWCI was significantly correlated with LDI
(emergent: Spearman’s r = )0.58, P < 0.001; forested:
Spearman’s r = )0.57, P < 0.001; combined: Spearman’s r =
)0.58, P < 0.001) (Fig. 4). Similarly, significant correlations
were found in comparisons between the Level 2 WRAP and
Level 3 FWCI assessment procedures: WRAP and diatom
FWCI (emergent, r = 0.69, P < 0.001; forested, r = 0.68, P <
0.001); WRAP and macrophyte FWCI (emergent, r = 0.77,
P < 0.001; forested, r = 0.82, P < 0.001); and WRAP and
macroinvertebrate FWCI (emergent, r = 0.52, P < 0.01;
forested, r = 0.63, P < 0.001).
如果是直接把机器翻译的答案粘过来那就不用了，这我也会的！