Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Plant defense against herbivory wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Plant breeding wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Plant Stewardship Index INTRODUCTORY SECTIONS The Plant Stewardship Index is a standardized assessment tool that calculates a numerical index reflecting the quality of native plant communities for a given area. It indicates the impacts of invasive plants and can also be used to monitor the efficacy of land management practices. Summary The Plant Stewardship Index (PSI) enables stewards of public and private land in the Piedmont area of Pennsylvania to survey and assess the status of the native plant populations on the properties they protect and manage. The PSI also serves as a broader ecological indicator in that the health of the native plant community has been shown to correlate with water quality, macroinvertebrate diversity, mammalian diversity, and overall watershed health. (PNPS 2003) The PSI provides a method for monitoring and evaluating land management practices. This method, adapted from the Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI or FQI) methodology, assigns relative values (Coefficients of Conservatism or CCs) to every plant found within a survey area, and calculates an overall PSI value for each area. By applying the PSI to plant surveys repeated at regular intervals, land managers can quantify the results of their land management practices and assess trends over time. The Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve maintains a free website-based PSI calculator (www.bhwp.org/db) that automatically calculates the PSI values for any entered plant inventory, and posts results on a free regional vegetative database. The PSI was developed by Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve with the help of many regional botanical experts. Typical Users Local governments Nonprofit organizations Individuals and businesses Educators Examples of Plant Stewardship Index users include: Nonprofit organizations: The D&R Greenway Trust (http://www.drgreenway.org), Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance (http://www.hlta.org), Duke Farms (http://www.dukefarms.org), Delaware River Basin Commission (http://www.state.nj.us/drbc), Buckingham Friends School (http://www.bfs.org ) and Friends of High School Park (http://www.highschoolpark.org) use the PSI in their conservation work. Individual and businesses: Princeton Hydro (http://www.princetonhydro.com) uses the PSI to monitor a variety of projects, including a stormwater management project and a wetland mitigation site. In addition, a number of private individuals use PSI to assess and develop management plans for their property. Educators: The PSI methodology is being incorporated into the curriculum at Delaware Valley College and is integrated into the NJ Land Stewardship Training program provided by Rutgers University. 1 Track Record: The Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) was developed in the 1970’s by Floyd Swink and Gerould Wilhelm for the assessment of tallgrass prairie restorations in the Chicago area. It is widely used by the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA and all the various states who currently have conservatism values assigned to their vascular flora. The PSI builds on the floristic quality assessment formulas by adding data about non-native species to the calculation. Both FQAI and PSI are based on the concept of species conservatism, and the assignment of Coefficients of Conservatism to a regional floral by a panel of experts. Coefficients have been assigned to the vascular flora of the Piedmont area of Pennsylvania and to the Upper Penn’s Creek area in central PA, as well as to Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, the Dakotas, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, West Virginia, Missouri, Michigan, Iowa and southern Ontario. Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve’s free database and PSI calculator now contains 334 plant lists logged by over 150 account-holders. Account-holders include State and County Park managers, Nature Center researchers, land trust stewards, academics, environmental advisory council members, private schools, and private landowners. Conservation Impact The public perception that preservation is successful once development has been halted is incomplete: rather, our landscape is also under siege from deer predation and invasions of non-native plants and insects. The extent to which there will be support for meaningful stewardship of these dwindling resources will hinge on our ability to quantify these losses in quality to the public, and to show the municipal decision-makers responsible for safeguarding these public trusts that we must invest in meaningful stewardship to safeguard quality. All plant lists may be viewed by all account-holders on the PSI website, creating a free interactive floristic regional database that may be sorted by zip code, fostering real-time data interchange amongst stewards in the public and private sectors. The PSI can be used to assess trends The PSI can be applied to existing data, such as plant inventories. What You’ll Need A reasonable knowledge of field botany. The PSI is a simple method using a plant inventory. It does not require expensive sampling equipment or laboratory processing. Challenges and Obstacles Since results may be strongly affected by observer expertise, studies must be carefully designed to ensure comparability of results between observers; i.e. time and expertise levels should be documented and replicated. Some individuals or organizations may not have the time or expertise to conduct PSI surveys and may need to hire a consultant. 2 IN-DEPTH SECTIONS Main Description Introduction A common goal of land stewardship projects is to preserve and protect those remnants of the natural environment that remain relatively intact and to protect these sensitive areas from being adversely impacted by human activities. A standardized assessment tool, such as the Plant Stewardship Index (PSI) provides land stewards with the information they need to establish stewardship priorities and set management goals. The PSI helps land stewards answer two questions: What is the naturalness of any site? How have land management practices (or their absence) affected that naturalness over time? Methodology The PSI is based on the observation that plants may act as “generalists,” which are not particular about where they grow and might grow very well on roadside ditches or in dooryards, as opposed to “conservative” species, which may grow only in specialized habitats, such as serpentine barrens or the pine barrens of New Jersey. For all of New Jersey and the Piedmont region of Pennsylvania, over 2000 plants have been catalogued and assigned a number from zero to ten by local experts and botanists. Zero represents the most “generalist” species, tolerant of disturbance and includes invasive or introduced nonnative species. Ten represents the most “conservative” species and includes many rare and endangered state-listed native plants that require special habitats and do not regrow after disturbance. This database of plants and associated numerical values are available to users through Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve’s PSI Calculator located at their website http://www.bhwp.org. Once a user inputs a list of plants found on a particular site, the calculator automatically computes: (1) the Mean C, which is the average of all the assigned numbers of plants found on a site, and (2) the Index number, which is the Mean C multiplied by the square root of the total number of plant species. Implementation Overall Assessment or Analysis by Habitat Type or Management Unit Prior to undertaking a PSI, stewards must decide whether they are interested in an overall assessment of floristic quality, or in a more detailed analysis by habitat types or management units, in which case individual inventories of each habitat or unit would be compiled. For example, a property might consist of an upper meadow and riparian corridor adjacent to one another, but requiring potentially different management regimes. In this case, separate inventories could be compiled for each section, allowing each area’s quality to be tracked separately. The Bowman Hill Wildflower Preserve’s PSI calculator can then run an aggregate computation for the total PSI values of the two areas considered together, thus yielding an overall index value. To determine if floristic quality is distributed more or less evenly throughout the site, or if some areas are more degraded than others, quadrat plots may be sampled, either randomly or along a transect. Commonly, a cover category or percent cover is assigned to each species within a quadrat, so that importance values may also be calculated for each of the species present. Native and total mean C values may fluctuate along the transect, as may percent native, relative importance and FQAI/PSI, all of which will reflect changes in quality across the site. Another approach to the question of uniform 3 floristic quality across a site would be to establish permanent sampling plots in representative portions of a site with surveys that are repeated on a regular basis. for the management of these public trusts. Assigning Coefficients of Conservatism To apply the PSI methodology, an inventory of the study area is done and each native taxon is assigned a coefficient of conservatism (C), an integer from 0 to 10, termed a coefficient of conservatism (C), which combines its tolerance to disturbance and its fidelity to a pristine or undisturbed habitat (remnant). Species given a C-value of 0-1 are taxa adapted to severe disturbances, while species ranked with a Cvalue of 2-3 are associated with somewhat more stable, though degraded, environments. Those species with coefficients of 4-6 include many dominant or matrix species for several habitats; they have a high consistency of occurrence within given community types. Species with C-values of 7-8 are taxa we mostly associated with natural areas, but that can be found persisting where the habitat has been somewhat degraded. Those species with coefficients of 9-10 are considered to be restricted to highquality natural areas. Coefficients of Conservatism are assigned by panels of experts familiar with their regional vascular flora. Coefficients have been assigned to the vascular flora of the Piedmont area of Pennsylvania and to the Upper Penn’s Creek area in central PA, as well as to Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, the Dakotas, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, West Virginia, Missouri, Michigan, Iowa and southern Ontario. Coefficients of Conservatism for the Piedmont area of Pennsylvania are available to download at www.bhwp.org/db . The Mean Native C value is a meaningful measure of habitat quality. It is not dependant on size of inventory area and is thus a meaningful measure of native species richness. (Rooney + Roger. 2003) A difference between native mean C and total mean C that is greater than 5 suggests that native flora has been compromised by non-native species. (Rothrock and Homoya 2005) Introduced plants, by their very nature, were uninvolved in the pristine native landscape, so Coefficients of Conservatism are not applied to them. All non-native or adventive plants are given a C value of 0. Calculation of the PSI Calculation of the PSI formulas are difficult and may be beyond the skills of some users. To address this concern, the free, accessible Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve web-site automatically calculates the PSI and FQAI values of any entered plant inventory, and allows the account-holder to print out complete reports of the findings. An overview of the process used to calculate the PSI follows: The naturalness of the total plant community is calculated by adding in all non-native species and giving them a C value of 0. Thus Total Mean C can be computed, and the PSI value is calculated by multiplying the Total Mean C by the square-root of N, where N is native species richness. The FQAI of an area is computed by multiplying the Native Mean C by the square-root of N, where N is the native species richness. 4 Use of the PSI in Monitoring Habitat Restorations When monitoring habitat restorations, if the management is efficacious, the Native Mean C either stabilizes or gradually obtains its original value (Wilhelm + Taft. 2004) “Tracking the quality of restorations and management efforts is well within the capabilities of preserve and federal land wildlife managers when using the FQAI and PSI. As an example, if a wetland preserve ecologist were implementing different techniques for restoring previously disturbed wetlands, changes in Native Mean C values or FQAI over time could aid in determining which method is more effective in repopulating the areas with desirable species.(Herman et al. 2006) Available Resources The database and PSI calculator are available to the public at no charge on Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve’s website at www.bhwp.org/db. Accounts are free and account-holders may compile and save site lists, modify or update lists, track lists print reports and view all other users’ site lists. Individuals or organizations without the time, expertise or resources to conduct PSI surveys may hire Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve to conduct a half-day or full-day inventory on a fee-for–service basis. Most sites may be assessed with a professional half-day or a full-day survey, or a complete floristic inventory may be produced by repeated surveys at various times throughout the year. Individuals or organizations may attend educational courses at Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve to learn more about implementation of the PSI methodology or to enhance plant ID skills. These classes:” Introduction to the Plant Stewardship Index”, and “PSI Field Training” workshop are offered repeatedly throughout the year. See www.bhwp.org for current offerings. Benefits of Using the PSI If the FQAI and the PSI of an area are the same, there are no non-native plants on the site. Thus, the numerical difference between FQAI and PSI can reveal the extent of non-native impacts. The PSI/FQAI ratio is simple – (based on either an inventory survey or a transect study), and as such it is an excellent rapid assessment of biological integrity. (EPA Office of Water 2002) The PSI can be used to determine the extent to which management (or lack thereof) is having an effect on the floristic quality of a site. FQAI/PSI can be effective in tracking vegetation changes in restoration, reconstruction, or control situations. (Taft et al. 1997) Land trusts and landowners can use these assessments to guide their stewardship on the ground, while governmental oversight officials might use this data to set buffers and mitigation ratios. (In Michigan and Illinois, “High Quality” wetlands (FQI ~ 35) must be mitigated at higher rates; 1:3 or 1:5 for example.) The PSI is not meant to be a stand-alone test of habitat quality, but should be used in conjunction with other measures of habitat quality. (Taft et al.1997; Hermann et al 1997) Floristic Quality Assessment is a richness- weighted index of “natural quality” where natural quality is combination of tolerance to disturbance, and habitat fidelity to pristine or undisturbed habitat. These two metrics have particular relevance to conservation decision-making. PSI inventory or transect will yield data used to calculate the following parameters: 1) species richness – both native and introduced 2) floristic quality index 3) plant stewardship index ( FQAI with introduced species) 4) mean native coefficient of conservatism 5) mean total coefficient of conservatism 6) guild diversity 7) species relative importance 8) percent native and 8) wetness characteristics. 5 Use of FQAI and PSI in Permitting, Performance Standards, and Mitigation FQAI and PSI can be useful in the application of resource protection laws. Two examples follow: Detroit Airport Expansion The following is an example excerpted from Herman (1994) where the FQAI system was used as a performance standard and for establishing mitigation criteria in an endangered species permit for the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport expansion: In 1989, expansion of the Detroit Metro Airport was expected to result in the on-site loss of three plant species listed as threatened under the M-ESA. The three species were Aristida longispica (slender three-awned grass), Juncus brachycarpus (short fruited rush), and Ludwigia alternifolia (seed box). The three species were found within remnant lakeplain wet-mesic prairies and mesic sand prairies. The statutory requirements of Part 365 (Endangered Species Protection) of P.A. 451 of 1994 were enhanced by making compliance with this act a condition of the state wetland permit. The provisions of the endangered species permit allowed the translocation of affected plants and seed bank to an off-site location, which had been excavated and graded to match the land contours and hydrology of the airport site. Unaffected areas on the airport were required to be protected and monitored as a baseline to compare the success of the translocated plants. Hydrology, soil moisture, and vegetation are being monitored for ten years. The criteria for success, required by the permit, states that at the off-site mitigation location, populations of threatened plants must be at least as large and viable as populations eliminated by the airport expansion. In addition, the mitigation area is required to be free of aggressive weeds such as Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife), the species diversity index should be stable or show an increase in native species diversity throughout the monitoring period, and it should show a stable or increasing floristic quality index and mean coefficient of conservatism. DuPage County Stormwater and Flood Plain Ordinance DuPage County, Illinois in implementing its stormwater and flood plain ordinance uses a C= 3.5 as a criteria for identifying “critical” wetlands and requires mitigation for the loss of these wetlands in the form of 3:1 acre wetland replacement (DuPage County Stormwater Management Committee, 1992). Administrative rules to the Illinois Wetland Policy Act of 1989 (20 ILCS 830, 17 Ill. Adm. Code 1090) also requires a 5.5:1 replacement ratio for mitigating loss of wetlands with a native floristic quality greater than 20 (FQI ≥ 20) or a mean coefficient of conservatism greater than or equal to 4 (C ≥ 4.0). Wilhelm (1991, 1992, 1993) suggests, based on monitoring data obtained from Chicago region restoration sites, that areas with known high floristic quality (FQI ≥ 35) cannot be routinely restored to their original floristic quality and therefore are immitigable. Conversely, lower quality wetlands registering FQAI in the teens and twenties may be mitigable History The PSI methodology was created in the 1970s in the Chicago region by Floyd Swink and Dr. Gerould Wilhelm and has been developed in many other states as the Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI). Acknowledgements Thanks to Leslie Jones Sauer, Tama Matsuoka, Ann Rhoads, Jack Holt, Janet Ebert, Linda Kelly, Bill Olson, Emile DeVito, Mary Leck, Karl Anderson, David Snyder, Kathleen Walz and Gerould Wilhelm 6 for their generous assistance and expertise in helping to guide the development of the Plant Stewardship Index by Bowman’s Hill. Alternatives to and Concerns about the Plant Stewardship Index There are alternatives to the Plant Stewardship Index that users may want to consider. Some of these other approaches may offer more scientific rigor. See “Concerns about the Plant Stewardship Index and the Floristic Quality Assessment methodology and applications in general” [HYPERLINK TO LIBRARY ITEM] prepared by Ann Rhoads of the Morris Arboretum (1/26/07). Publications and Links Native Plants and Their Role in the Upper Penn’s Creek Watershed http://www.pawildflower.org/g3/00_intro/intro.htm Describes a Growing Greener funded project whose focus of this project was to investigate the role of native plants in the Upper Penns Creek watershed and their relationship to water quality. Bernthal, Thomas W.: 2003. Development of Floristic Quality Assessment Methodology for Wisconsin. Final Report to USEPA Wetland Grant # CO975115-01-0 Wisconsin Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection. http://dnr.wisconsin.gov/org/water/fhp/wetlands/documents/FQAMethodWithAcknowledgements.pdf See pages 6-7 for discussion of sampling timing on Mean C and FQA Index scores. Bourdagh, Michael: The Relationship between Sampling Area, Species Richness and the Floristic Quality Assessment Index. University of Minnesota, Natural Resources Research Institute. http://www.conbio.org/Activities/Meetings/2003/website/poster.htm#P005-012 Description of poster done for a Society for Conservation Biology meeting. Describes a critical analysis done on the FQAI and includes contact information. Herman, Brook D., Madsen, John D, Ervin, Gary N.: Development of Coefficients of Conservatism for Wetland Vascular Flora of North and Central Mississippi; GeoResources Institute Report 4001 (Water Resources) March 20, 2006 http://www.cdfinc.com/CRI/Mississippi%20FQA.pdf Provides information on the history of the FAQAI, and the development and use of CCs Herman, K.D., L.A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A Reznicek, G.S. Wilhelm, and W.W. Brodowicz. 1996. Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Categories and Computer Application Programs for the State of Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program. Lansing, Michigan. 21pp + Appendices. http://epa.gov/greenacres/mi-list.html Applications of this system include the identification of remnant habitats of native floristic significance, comparisons between different sites, long-term monitoring of floristic quality, monitoring the progress of habitat restoration, and the use of National Wetland Categories to assist in identification of wetlands. The MDNR is using the same quality assessment system that Floyd Swink and Gerould Wilhelm used for the Chicago Region. 7 The website has ordering information for copies of this publication with the computer program application Mushet, David M., Ned H. Euliss, Jr., and Terry L. Shaffer. 2002. Floristic Quality Assessment of one natural and three restored wetland complexes in North Dakota, USA. Wetlands 22(1):126138. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/ndwetlnd/index.htm Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1979. Plants of the Chicago Region. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Illinois. Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. 4th ed. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis. Taft, John B. and G. Wilhelm, D.M. Ladd, and L.A. Masters. 1997. Floristic Quality Assessment for the Vegetation of Illinois, A Method for Assessing Vegetation Integrity. In Erigenia, Number 15, November 1997. http://www.pawildflower.org/g3/04_resources/Illinois_FQA.pdf Tool Experts/Contacts Jeannine Vannais Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve PO Box 685 New Hope, PA 18938 215-862-2924 [email protected] Vannais is the Plant Stewardship Index Coordinator at Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve Acknowledgements The original text for this tool was prepared by Jeannine Vannais of Bowman’s Hill Wildflower Preserve. 8