1 / 29

Invasive/Exotic Plant Protocol

Invasive/Exotic Plant Protocol. Donovan Craig R.A., UNLV Scott Abella , P.I. UNLV; Sara McPherson G.A., UNLV;

elda
Télécharger la présentation

Invasive/Exotic Plant Protocol

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Invasive/Exotic Plant Protocol Donovan Craig R.A., UNLV Scott Abella, P.I. UNLV; Sara McPherson G.A., UNLV; Jean Pan, MOJN Ecologist; Bob Truitt, MOJN Data Manager; Jennifer Burke, MOJN Protocol Data Manager; Dana Robinson, MOJN GIS; Laura Steadman, MOJN GIS; Wendy Trowbridge, Springs Vegetation PD; Burt Pendleton, Integrated Upland PD; Geoff Moret, Water-related PD; Penny Latham, PWR Coordinator; and Nita Tallent-Halsell, MOJN Coordinator

  2. Rationale • >40 million hectares infested (~4% of US); annual increases of 8-20% (FICMNEW- Federal Interagency Committee on Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds) • ~ 3-4% of NPS lands • Next to habitat loss, invasive species are a primary threat to global biodiversity (Scott and Wilcove 1988). • Parks have mission to maintain natural resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

  3. Species-Area relationships

  4. Monitoring Questions/Objectives (1) • Where are incipient populations of targeted (high-priority species of greatest management concern) invasive plants located in MOJN parks? • Detect incipient populations and new occurrences of targeted invasive plants before they become established in prioritized search areas (vector corridors and areas of high management significance) in MOJN parks. • ED vs. S&T (distinct components)

  5. Roadsides, Trails, (VECTOR CORRIDORS) Moist areas with disturbance

  6. Site priorities

  7. Monitoring Questions/Objectives (2) • What is the trend in abundance and frequency of established target invasive plants in MOJN parks? • Estimate the status and trend of established target invasive plants frequency and abundance in shrub and riparian communities and other priority management sites identified by the prioritization process. • S&T

  8. Trends of established species? High bars mostly Bromus spp.

  9. Monitoring Questions/Objectives (3) • What is the relationship between exotic plant management practices and target IEPs, secondary invasive plant species and non-target native species? • Estimate the trend of established target invasive plants abundance, secondary invasive plant abundance and native plant abundance following pest management practices in MOJN parks. • Simply a before and after measurable trend- not a controlled study.

  10. Which Parks and why? • S&T for those parks/sites covered by Springs and IU protocols. • All parks need early detection efforts. • Threats of certain exotic species similar for many parks, but many differing degrees of threats (Early Detection vs. Status and Trends) • For example: Brassica tournefortii at LAKE vs. DEVA • So question is: Which species and why? • Plus: Which areas within parks and why?

  11. Species list development

  12. Sampling Design • Status and Trends monitoring integrated with other vegetation protocols. • Focusing on established species of high ecological concerns (some beyond management feasibility). • Early Detection methods following the “Weed Sentry” program model (with adjustments). • Focusing most on incipient invasions. • Should not exclude certain exotics based on management feasibility. • Some level of measure for all (P/A).

  13. Sampling Design: Weed Sentry Model

  14. Sampling Design: Weed Sentry Model

  15. Sampling Design: Weed Sentry Model • Roads, trails, shorelines/riparian corridors, and other high disturbance areas (e.g. developments) • Due to slower rate of travel (when driving), generally exclude major heavily travelled roads (safety issue). • These get plenty of observation as is. • Depending on park resources and length/type of routes, prioritize routes.

  16. Sampling Design: Weed Sentry Model • Lessons learned from WS program: • Do not exclude exotic plants from data • (at minimum P/A) • If time, include targeted “off-road” searches • Perpendicular transects • Better repeatability of measurement data • %cover vs. coarse abundance categories

  17. PARAMETERS & MEASUREMENTS • Presence/Absence for all exotics at a minimum along ED routes. • Measures of abundance for target incipient invasive exotics. • Depends on species for type of measure (% cover, density, census) • Patches of herbaceous weeds (% infested area of gross area). • Measure standard plot for repeatability (10x10m)

  18. MEASUREMENT SCHEDULE • Based on climate and elevation gradients • Based on plant life forms and phenology • Exotic winter annuals in lower MOJN: can start in late winter/early spring (varies with annual moisture, more time constraint). • Perennials most often associated with higher moisture regimes (springs, riparian; less time constraint). • GRBA shorter growing season (summer park)

  19. PERSONNEL NEEDS • Parks will be responsible for Early Detection staff (volunteers??). • LAKE has “Resource Steward” program • Great citizen-science opportunities • NCC, ACE work crews • I&M crews for Integrated Upland and Springs/Riparian Vegetation will cover Status and Trends monitoring.

  20. TIME LINE Early Detection Protocol Narrative and SOPs

  21. DATA MANAGEMENT • Ideas still in development. • Ideally, we would want to have a centralized database (easily accessible to all, web interface). • Some crossover of ED with S&T • I&M (S&T) crews (Springs Veg, IU) would report incidental observations for Early Detection (“trip report”).

  22. DATA MANAGEMENT

  23. COMPLIANCE • For Status & Trends, this will fall under other vegetation protocols. • For Early Detection, parks are responsible.

  24. QA/QC • Adequate training of observers and field guides should improve quality of data. • Photos and/or voucher specimens taken for “unknown” plants. • Centralized Database??- would need strict QA/QC measures.

  25. STATUS OF PROTOCOL AND REPORTS • Major network-wide inventory of known exotic species and threats. • Much information about each species (biology, distributions, habits) • Broken down to individual park inventories • Wrapping up prioritization of species (first draft). • ED narrative (early sections) coming along. • Field guide for crews and training purposes

  26. STATUS OF PROTOCOL AND REPORTS

  27. STATUS OF PROTOCOL AND REPORTS

  28. QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION Donovan Craig: donovan.craig@unlv.edu Scott Abella: scott.abella@unlv.edu (702) 895-5163

More Related