Forest Vegetation Monitoring

1
Forest Vegetation Monitoring

• An example of a collaborative approach to
  protocol development
• James Comiskey

2
Background

• Most eastern networks have identified forest
  vegetation as a high priority vital sign
• Three prototype parks have been monitoring forest
  vegetation for more than a decade and have
  extensive experience that is applicable to the
  new network programs
• Networks independently developing forest
  vegetation monitoring protocols
• Want to be able to share data and resources
  between networks and be compatible with the
  Forest Service FIA Program

3
Participating Networks and Parks

• 4 regions
• 8 networks
• 3 prototypes
• 61 parks
• or
• 23 of the IM Parks

4
Working Group Goal

• Develop standard vegetation monitoring protocols
  that will allow cross-network comparisons and
  sharing of experiences and resources
• Incorporate knowledge and experience from
  prototype parks
• Standardize definitions and measurement methods
  for vegetation metrics
• Explore opportunities for data sharing and
  reporting

5
Meetings

• FIA, Forest Service
• Initial discussions and protocol development
• Southern Research Station, Forest Service,
  Asheville, NC
• February 2005
• Center for Urban Ecology, NCRN
• October 2005
• IM Breakout
• February 2006
• Shenandoah National Park
• March 2006
• Center for Urban Ecology, NCRN (and WebEx)
• January 2007

Minutes and presentations at http//www.nature.np
s.gov/im/units/midn/Forest_Monitoring_Meeting.cfm
6
Learning from Experience

• Prototype Parks
• Tips, tricks and words of wisdom
• Use of technology
• Cost effective approaches to field work
• SHEN and CACO
• protocol evaluation, redesign and implementation
• GRSM
• funding challenges research opportunities and
  findings

7
Networks Review and RefineNCRN and NETN

• Initial pilot testing in 2005
• Changes in size and shape of plots
• Adjustments to measurement criteria
• Implementation in 2006
• Field experiences
• Equipment and field crews
• Training
• Preliminary results
• Evaluation of sampling power
• Proposed changes and adjustments for next field
  season

8
What standardization.???
SHEN GRSM CACO

• Prototype parks

9
Plot sub-units

• Plot
• All trees 10 cm dbh
• Measured, tagged, marked (and mapped)
• Crown cover classes
• Tree and foliage condition
• Micro-plot
• Trees and shrubs 1cm and lt10 cm dbh
• Regeneration seedlings
• Quadrats
• Regeneration seedlings
• Herbaceous plants
• Transects
• Coarse woody debris

10
Working Group Discussions

• Standard metrics
• Nomenclature for plots, micro-plots, and quadrats
• Standard definitions for metrics
• Methods for measuring trees
• Class categories size, cover, etc.
• Sample design
• Power vs. resources
• Panel designs
• Reporting results
• Ecological integrity metrics and assessment
  points
• Data management and sharing
• Field computers and database design
• Invasive exotic species analyses

11
The wheel has never been rounder

• The refinement process has been of great benefit
  to the last networks
• MIDN, ERMN, CUPN have been involved with
  discussions from early on
• Involved in review process and will adopt
  protocols with few modifications
• Are able to use data from other networks as part
  of their pilot testing
• Have had the opportunity to participate in field
  work
• Access to databases that have been field tested

12
Ecological Integrity Scorecard

• NETN developing standards for analyzing and
  reporting ecological integrity based on
  assessment points, or acceptable ranges of
  variation, for each metric

13
Combined Reporting

• Forest Monitoring group has agreed to tentatively
  adopt the NETN metrics
• Review metrics and assessment points
• Ensure metric ranges meet network and park needs
• Continue to collaborate in refining acceptable
  ranges of variability
• Some ranges will need to be modified as data and
  trends are observed
• Ranges may vary across networks
• Combined reporting at a multi-network,
  multi-region level
• State of the Eastern Forests report?

14
Exotic Plant Species

• 2484 Plots in 50 Parks
• Vegetation monitoring plots from random sampling
  (CACO, NCRN, NETN, SHEN)
• Vegetation mapping plots (APHN, CUPN, ERMN, MIDN)
  
• 5079 observations of 290 exotic species,
• mean 2 exotics per plot
• Ranged from 1190 plots (48) with 0 exotics
  species, to one plot 25 exotic species
• All parks had exotic species,
• mean 24 exotic plant species per park

• Most common species
• Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle) found in
  38 parks and 344 plots (1 in 8)
• Microstegium vimineum (Japanese stiltgrass) 36
  parks and 344 plots (1 in 8)
• Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose) 35 parks and
  418 plots (1 in 6)

15
Next steps

• Data sharing
• Exotic pests/pathogens deer browsing etc.
• Conceptual Model
• Unified model for eastern forests
• Data Management
• Collaboration between data managers first
  discussions at DM Meeting
• Shared resources
• Hiring and training for seasonal field staff
• Combined field teams for greater cost efficiency
• Analysis and reporting

16
Participants and contributors

• Networks
• APHN Robert Emmott, Nora Murdock, Patrick
  Flaherty
• CUPN Teresa Leibfreid, Shepard McAninch
• ERMN Matt Marshall, Stephanie Perles, Nate
  Piekielek
• GLKN Bill Route, Suzanne Sanders
• MIDN Jim Comiskey, Kristina Callahan
• NCBN Sara Stevens
• NCRN Pat Campbell, John Paul Schmit, Geoff
  Sanders, Mark Lehman, Marcus Koenen
• NETN Brian Mitchell, Geri Tierney, Greg Shriver,
  Casey Reese, Fred Dieffenbach
• Prototype Parks
• CACO Carrie Phillips, Stephen Smith
• GRSM Mike Jenkins
• SHEN Wendy Cass, Nick Fisichelli, Alan Williams
• Shawn Carter, Beth Johnson
• Ken Stolte, USFS