Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Optimising a Sampling Design for Endangered Wetland Plant Communities: Another Call for Adaptive Management in Monitoring

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective monitoring requires clear questions and a well-designed sampling regime. However, objectives often evolve over time which can render the initial sampling design ineffective. Using a vegetation monitoring program employed in Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamps, Australia, as a case study, we examine a sampling design based on small numbers of 400 m2 plots to assess if it can meet the stated monitoring objectives of detecting significant changes in number and abundance of species per wetland. To determine this, we intensively sampled four monitored wetlands using randomly distributed 4 m2 plots to obtain representative estimates of species composition and abundance. The 400 m2 plots captured 91 % of the common species and a similar proportional distribution of life-forms as found in the 4 m2 plots, but missed 62 % of the sparse species found in 4 m2 plots. Insufficient replication of 400 m2 plots made detection of statistically significant changes at the swamp scale difficult or impossible. Our review showed the weak sampling design was contributed to by 1) an initial lack of clearly stated management triggers and 2) changes in monitoring objectives and triggers over time, without revising the sampling design. We highlight the need for an adaptive approach to monitoring.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archaux F, Bergès L, Chevalier R (2007) Are plant censuses carried out on small quadrats more reliable than on larger ones? Plant Ecology 188:179–190. doi:10.1007/s11258-006-9155-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldeck CA, Colgan MS, Féret J-B et al (2014) Landscape-scale variation in plant community composition of an African savanna from airborne species mapping. Ecological Applications 24:84–93. doi:10.1890/13-0307.1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett TM, Gray AN (2011) Potential of a national monitoring program for forests to assess change in high-latitude ecosystems. Biological Conservation 144:1285–1294. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson D, Baird IRC (2012) Vegetation, fauna and groundwater interrelations in low nutrient temperate montane peat swamps in the upper Blue Mountains, New South Wales. Cunninghamia 12:267–307. doi:10.7751/cunninghamia.2012.12.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer HL (2009) Geospatial modelling environment

  • Blick RAJ, Brownstein G, Johns C, et al (2013) Spring and annual flora monitoring report for Centennial Coal operations. 72

  • Booth DT, Cox SE (2008) Image-based monitoring to measure ecological change in rangeland. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:185–190. doi:10.1890/070095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell CJ, Johns CV, Nielsen DL (2014) The value of plant functional groups in demonstrating and communicating vegetation responses to environmental flows. Freshw Biol In press. doi:10.1111/fwb.12309

  • Casanova MT (2011) Using water plant functional groups to investigate environmental water requirements. Freshwater Biology 56:2637–2652. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02680.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabot D, Bird DM (2013) Small unmanned aircraft: precise and convenient new tools for surveying wetlands. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems 01:15–24. doi:10.1139/juvs-2013-0014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd M (2011) Where are my quadrats? Positional accuracy in fieldwork. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2:576–584. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00118.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs BJ, Barmuta LA, Fairweather PG et al (2002) Assessing ecological impact. Applications in flowing waters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher AT, Erskine PD (2012) Mapping of a rare plant species (Boronia deanei) using hyper-resolution remote sensing and concurrent ground observation. Ecological Management and Restoration 13:195–198. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2012.00649.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (1999) Implications of interspecific and intraspecific abundance-occupancy relationships. Oikos 86:195–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gitay H, Roxburgh SH, Wilson JB (1991) Species-area relations in a New Zealand tussock grassland, with implications for nature reserve design and for community structure. Journal of Vegetation Science 2:113–118. doi:10.2307/3235903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gremmen N, Smith V, van Tongeren O (2003) Impact of trampling on the vegetation of subantarctic Marion Island. Arctic Antarctic and Alpine Research 35:442–446. doi:10.1657/1523-0430(2003)035[0442:IOTOTV]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris GP (2003) Ecological paradigms, change detection and prediction. Integr Model Biophys Soc Econ Syst Resour Manag Solut

  • Hellmann JJ, Fowler GW (1999) Bias, precision, and accuracy of four measures of species richness. Ecological Applications 9:824–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert SH (1990) Spatial distribution of the Montane Unicorn. Oikos 58:257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalonen J, Vanha-majamaa I, Tonteri T (1998) Optimal sample and plot size for inventory of field and ground layer vegetation in a mature Myrtillus- type boreal spruce forest. Annales Botanici Fennici 35:191–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings MD, Faber-Langendoen D, Loucks OL et al (2009) Standards for associations and alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification. Ecological Monographs 79:173–199. doi:10.1890/07-1804.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimes L, Dancak M, Hajek M et al (2001) Scale-dependent biases in species counts in a grassland. Journal of Vegetation Science 12:699–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee WG, McGlone M, Wright E (2005) Biodiversity inventory and monitoring: a review of national and international systems and a proposed framework for future biodiversity monitoring by the Department of Conservation. 213

  • Legg CJ, Nagy L (2006) Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. Journal of Environmental Management 78:194–199. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2009) Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:482–486. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2010) Effective ecological monitoring. CSIRO Publishing

  • Martin J, Kitchens WM, Hines JE (2007) Importance of well-designed monitoring programs for the conservation of endangered species: case study of the snail kite. Conservation Biology 21:472–481. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00613.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, et al (2012) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-4

  • Palmer MW, White PS (1994) Scale dependence and the species-area relationship. American Naturalist 144:717–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippi TE, Dixon P, Taylor BA (1998) Detecting trends in species composition. Ecological Applications 8:300–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay PM, Kent M, Reid CL, Duckworth JC (2006) Taxonomic, morphological and structural surrogates for the rapid assessment of vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:747–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid MA, Quinn GP (2004) Hydrologic regime and macrophyte assemblages in temporary floodplain wetlands: Implications for detecting responses to environmental water allocations. Wetlands 24:586–599. doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0586:HRAMAI]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiner SM, Chiarucci A, Fox GA et al (2011) The inderpinning of the relationship of species richness with time and space. Ecological Monographs 81:195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz NL, Reid N, Lodge G, Hunter JT (2014) Seasonal and interannual variation in vegetation composition: Implications for survey design and data interpretation. Austral Ecol n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/aec.12141

  • Scott JJ, Kirkpatrick JB (1994) Effects of human trampling on the sub-Antarctic vegetation of Macquarie Island. Polar Record 30:207–220. doi:10.1017/S003224740002427X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens CJ, Dise NB, Mountford JO, Gowing DJ (2004) Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303:1876–1879. doi:10.1126/science.1094678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tongway DJ, Hindley NL (2004) Landscape function analysis manual: procedures for monitoring and assessing landscapes with special reference to minesites and rangelands, version 3.1. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Whinam J, Chilcott NM (2003) Impacts after four years of experimental trampling on alpine/sub-alpine environments in western Tasmania. Journal of Environmental Management 67:339–351. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00218-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Cameron Kilgour and Vanessa Glenn for their assistance with fieldwork and plant identification. This work was supported by funds from Centennial Coal Ltd.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    G. Brownstein, R. Blick, C. Johns, P. Bricher, A. Fletcher & P. D. Erskine

Authors
  1. G. Brownstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Blick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Johns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Bricher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. D. Erskine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Brownstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brownstein, G., Blick, R., Johns, C. et al. Optimising a Sampling Design for Endangered Wetland Plant Communities: Another Call for Adaptive Management in Monitoring. Wetlands 35, 105–113 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0599-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-014-0599-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation