University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers U.S. Department of the Interior
1998
Measuring & Monitering Plant Populations
Caryl L. Elzinga Alderspring Ecological Consulting
Daniel W. Salzer Nature Conservancy of Oregon
John W. Willoughby Bureau of Land Management
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usblmpub
Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons
Elzinga, Caryl L.; Salzer, Daniel W.; and Willoughby, John W., "Measuring & Monitering Plant Populations" (1998). U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers. 17. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usblmpub/17
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of the Interior at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. MEASURING & MONITORING Plant Populations COVER PHOTOS The cover landscape photo and the picture of the two people sampling were taken by Daniel Salzer. Both photos were taken at The Nature Conservancy's Katharine Ordway Sycan Marsh Preserve. The individuals shown sampling in the small photo are Rob Lindsay and Linda Poole Rexroat, both are TNC employees. The inset flower photo was taken by Linda M. Hardie, and shows grass-widows (Sisyrinchium douglasii), at the Nature Conservany’s Tom McCall Preserve at Rowena Crest.
Copies available from:
Bureau of Land Management National Business Center BC-650B P.O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado 80225-0047 MEASURING & MONITORING Plant Populations
AUTHORS:
Caryl L. Elzinga Ph.D. Alderspring Ecological Consulting P.O. Box 64 Tendoy, ID 83468
Daniel W. Salzer Coordinator of Research and Monitoring The Nature Conservancy of Oregon 821 S.E. 14th Avenue Portland, OR 97214
John W. Willoughby State Botanist Bureau of Land Management California State Office 2135 Butano Drive Sacramento, CA 95825
This technical reference represents a team effort by the three authors. The order of authors is alphabetical and does not represent the level of contribution.
Though this document was produced through an interagency effort, the following BLM numbers have been assigned for tracking and administrative purposes:
BLM Technical Reference 1730-1
BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730
MEASURING AND MONITORING PLANT POPULATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The production of this document would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. Phil Dittberner of the Bureau of Land Management's National Applied Resource Sciences Center (NARSC) coordinated the effort for BLM. Ken Berg, former BLM National Botanist, provided support and funding for the project.
The content of many chapters in this Technical Reference has benefited from the review of lecture outlines included in “Vegetation Monitoring in a Management Context,” a week-long monitoring workshop offered jointly by The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service.
The authors would also like to acknowledge those persons who reviewed the document and provided valuable comments, including Jim Alegria of the BLM Oregon State Office; Paul Sawyer of the BLM Arizona State Office; Rita Beard, Andrew Kratz, Will Moir, and David Wheeler of the Forest Service; Peggy Olwell of the National Park Service; and Gary White of Colorado State University.
We'd like to thank Sherry Smith of Indexing Services for the many hours she donated to this project in developing the index to this TR.
We extend a special thank you to Janine Koselak (Visual Information Specialist) of NARSC for doing a masterful job in layout, design, and production of the final document.
Calystegia stebbinsii Stebbins’ morning glory by Mary Ann Showers
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
MEASURING AND MONITORING PLANT POPULATIONS PREFACE This technical reference applies to monitoring situations involving a single plant species, such as an indicator species, key species, or weed. It was originally developed for monitoring special sta- tus plants, which have some recognized status at the Federal, State, or agency level because of their rarity or vulnerability. Most examples and discussions in this technical reference focus on these special status species, but the methods described are also applicable to any single-species monitoring and even some community monitoring situations. We thus hope wildlife biologists, range conservationists, botanists, and ecologists will all find this technical reference helpful.
Monitoring is not a new activity for land management agencies, but there is a renewed interest and a new national emphasis on improving the quality of monitoring. Monitoring designed and executed effectively is a powerful tool for better management of resources. Good monitoring, while initially expensive to implement, is eventually cost-effective because management prob- lems can be detected at an early stage, when solutions may yet be relatively inexpensive. Good monitoring can demonstrate that management is effective and successful, can silence critics, and can encourage the widespread adoption of an effective management technique.
Often, however, the results from monitoring are inconclusive and fail to provide the information needed to evaluate the success of management. Inconclusive or ambiguous monitoring results are expensive, both in terms of the resources wasted on the monitoring project and the potential costs of incorrect action. These costs are often difficult to measure because they are exacted from the environment in the form of environmental damage, or from industry in the form of unnecessary controls. Reduced public confidence and litigation expenses are additional hidden costs of poor monitoring.
Many monitoring projects suffer one of five unfortunate fates: (1) they are never completely imple- mented; (2) the data are collected but not analyzed; (3) the data are analyzed but results are incon- clusive; (4) the data are analyzed and are interesting, but are not presented to decision makers; (5) the data are analyzed and presented, but are not used for decision-making because of internal or external factors (see Appendix 1 for some typical scenarios). The problem is rarely the collection of data. Agency personnel are often avid collectors of field data because it is one of the most enjoyable parts of their jobs. Data collection, however, is a small part of successful monitoring.
Because of the difficulty and importance of effective monitoring, agencies developed standard monitoring approaches in the 1960s through 1980s. While these techniques effectively met the challenges of that time, they are inadequate now for several reasons: