jjO f^b &r$>oiA^c<Z Ka$t*\ Shenandoah National Park Long-Term Ecological Monitoring System User Manuals Section I: Overview Section II: Forest Component User Manual Section III: Aquatic Component User Manual Section IV: Gypsy Moth Component User Manual Section V: Database Management System Component User Manual NPS/NRSHEN/NRTR-90/02 United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social science research through the Natural Resource Technical Report Series. Natural resource inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Documents in this series usually contain information of a preliminary nature and are prepared primarily for internal use within the National Park Service. This information is not intended for use in open literature. National Park Service Review Notice This report has been reviewed by the National Park Service and approved for dissemination. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the National Park Service or does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available from the following: Publications Coordinator (FTS) 327-2156 National Park Service (303) 969-2156 Natural Resource Publications Office c/o Air Quality Division (AIR) P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 ^v SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM SECTION I OVERVIEW NPS/NRSHEN/NRTR-90/02 1st Edition: September 1990 by F. William Ravlin 1 J. Reese Voshell Jr. 1 David Wm. Smith 2 Susan L. Rutherford 1 Stephen W. Hiner 1 David A. Haskell 3 department of Entomology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 department of Forestry Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 3 Shenandoah National Park Luray, Virginia 22835 J In partial fulfillment of Cooperative Agreement 14-16-0009-1558 between Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University and USDI, National Park Service, Shenandoah National Park, Luray, Virginia 22835. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/shenandoahnationOOravl ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual series is the result of the intensive efforts of many people. During the six year development and implementation period, the degree of cooperation and dedication to the task was exceptional and is deserving the extra attention given here. The Shenandoah National Park Inventory and Monitoring (l&M) program began with a vision; a vision born of the creative minds of several of our most respected National Park Service (NPS) scientists and managers. In this case, the vision was the realization of the critical importance of l&M to the future management and protection of the natural resources within the National Park System. There were undoubtedly others that contributed to this vision, however, those most active during recent years include: Dave Parsons, Dave Graber, Gary Davis, Ray Herrmann, Robert Stottlemyer, and Boyd Evison. The basic principles of l&M supported by these people and others can be found throughout this manual series. Their contribution to this effort is a real one and cannot be overlooked. Thank you all. It is quantum leap from vision to action. The person that made this all possible was Mid-Atlantic Regional Chief Scientist John Karish. He recognized the urgent need for an l&M program at Shenandoah National Park (SNP) and provided financial support and program direction. He was determined to get this project started and to see it through; and he did. One of the most unusual aspects of this project was the dedication of the l&M work group at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Their names can be found on the cover sheets of each manual section in which they were involved. These people showed a remarkable sense of responsibility for the quality of these manuals and can be rightly proud of their accomplishments. The Park staff were the work horses of the project. Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist Rick Potts and Geographic Information Specialist Specialist Alison Teetor, were involved from the beginning, others entered the program as it grew, assuming key roles during the implementation period. Rick, more than any other, was responsible for the quality and reliability of field protocols selected for inclusion in the manuals. His uncompro- mising quest for quality is evident in all of his work. Superintendent Bill Wade and Assistant Superintendent Paul Anderson are avid supporters of the Park's l&M program. Their tenacious dedication to quality natural resource protection and management is well known. These people made up the team. I am proud to have the opportunity to work with them on this project. ' David A. Haskell Chief, Division of Natural Resources and Science Shenandoah National Park l-iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I. Overview Page I- Relationship of Monitoring, Research, and Management 1 Overview of Long-term Studies 3 History of Monitoring by the National Park Service 4 Justification for Long-term Monitoring by the National Park Service 5 Introduction to Shenandoah National Park's Inventory and Monitoring Program 6 Rationale for Design 8 General Considerations 8 Forest Component 8 Aquatic Component 10 Gypsy Moth Component 13 Database Management System 14 Literature Cited 16 Section II. Forest Component User Manual Section III. Aquatic Component User Manual Section IV. Gypsy Moth Component User Manual Section V. Database Management System User Manual l-v RELATIONSHIP OF MONITORING, documented the rejection by the participants of "collect- RESEARCH, AND MANAGEMENT ing data for the sake of collecting data." It reflected the insistence of the workshop participants that the only way to expand ecological theory and to solve problems The subject of this series of documents is a of environmental resource management is to organize Long-Term Ecological Monitoring System (LTEMS) that research projects around ecological questions and is to be used for managing the natural resources of the hypotheses. Shenandoah National Park. It is important to have a thorough understanding of some of the underlying While no one should argue that experimenta- concepts, especially that of monitoring. The terms tion has an important place in ecology (and that the monitoring and research are often used interchange- LTER program is making valuable contributions to ably, but their meanings are really quite different. Moni- ecology), the importance of monitoring has been greatly toring in the context of ecology is the systematic sam- underestimated (Likens 1983, Taylor 1989). Many of pling and measurement over time of variables that the environmental concerns that we have today, such describe the distribution and abundance of biological as acid deposition, ozone depletion, toxic waste dis- resources, the distribution and concentrations of physi- posal, and changes in global climate, were unheard of cal, geological, and chemical properties, or the location 30 to 50 years ago when some of the effective monitor- and rates of important processes (O'Connor and Fle- ing programs were being established. While monitoring mer 1987). It can be thought of as a descriptive status programs may not be directed at specific questions report on an integral of time and space. The purpose of originally, the long-term records from monitoring pro- monitoring is to obtain time series data sets that will grams eventually provide the opportunity to formulate detect significant changes in the environment and to hypotheses and to use the experimental approach for provide timely warning and other important advice to determining cause and effect by using previous time managers (Segar et al. 1987). series data sets as a comparison (Likens 1 983). Taylor (1989) has taken this argument a step further and has Research can be defined as the systematic suggested that the experimental approach often may collection of data that produces new knowledge not be appropriate for establishing ecological knowl- (O'Connor and Flemer 1987). The key word that edge, particularly at the community and ecosystem distinguishes research from monitoring is "knowledge," levels. The philosophy of science, with its emphasis on which implies a greater understanding than can be hypothesis testing, had its origins in the physical sci- obtained only by monitoring. The purpose of research ences. There, scientists can presume that change is in the context of ecology is to interpret facts, such as not likely to be occurring, so experiments can produce those obtained by monitoring, so that changes in the scientific knowledge by proceeding from hypotheses to environment can be explained and the eventual con- theories to laws within a reasonably short period of time sequences of those changes predicted. Research (certainly within the span of a professional career). involves the experimental approach, in which the Perhaps it is unreasonable to think that ecological probable cause of an observation is determined by knowledge can be established by the classical scientific formulating an hypothesis and testing it in situations method, because biological evolution and landscape with and without the suspected cause. Research can geomorphology are ongoing processes. The complex-