Biological Invasions

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 523–539 | Cite as

Searching for a Needle in a Haystack: Evaluating Survey Methods for Non-indigenous Plant Species

  • Lisa J. RewEmail author
  • Bruce D. Maxwell
  • Frank L. Dougher
  • Richard Aspinall


The control and management of non-indigenous plant species (NIS) can be conceptually divided into three phases: inventory/survey, monitoring and management. Here we focus on phase one, determining which species are present and where they are located within the environment. Sampling for NIS is inherently time-consuming and thus costly. Many management areas are large and therefore can only be surveyed (partial observation of the total area by sampling) and not inventoried (total observation of area). Survey data should reflect the spatial distribution of the target species populations over the landscape. Such data can then be used in combination with environmental data, to create probability maps of target species occurrence for the entire area of interest. We used a GIS model to evaluate seven different survey methods for consistency and reliability of intersecting NIS species’ patches and producing samples which reflect the spatial distribution of the population, and which can be performed in a cost and time-efficient manner. The GIS model was developed to create NIS populations which were then sampled using the different survey methods, and the results recorded. To improve the applicability of the model, four patch sizes and levels of occurrence were used, along with random and weighted distribution patterns in relation to patch proximity to roads and trails. Grid and random points, and targeted (stratified continuous) transects (starting on a road or trail (rights of way (RoW)) and finishing 2 km from any RoW) methods provided the most consistent samples of the population. Logistically, point methods required an unrealistic distance and time commitment in comparison with transect methods. The importance of collecting information on the size of NIS patches was demonstrated as more small patches were intersected than larger ones when the area infested was held constant. Thus, if frequency of patches is used to explain the results of a survey then comparisons between species and methods are difficult to interpret thus leading to erroneous conclusions. However, use of percentage of area infested estimates provides for easier comparison between species and sample methods. The targeted transect method provided the most reliable, efficient and consistent sample with the expected spatial distribution.


invasive species inventory non-native species sampling method simulation model stratified sampling survey weed management weeds 



non-indigenous plant species


perpendicular to rights of way transect survey method


rights of way e.g. roads and trails


Seek and destroy survey method


Yellowstone National Park


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin, MP, Heyligers, PC 1989Vegetation survey design for conservation: gradsect sampling of forests in north-eastern NSWBiological Conservation501332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour, MG, Burk, JH, Pitts, WD 1980Terrestrial Plant EcologyThe Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc.California, USA605Google Scholar
  3. Cooksey D and Sheley R (1997) Montana noxious weed survey and mapping system. Montana State University Extension Service, MT, 9613, 20 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawley, MJ 1997Plant Ecology2 Blackwell Science LtdOxford717Google Scholar
  5. Diamond, JM 1975Assembly of species communitiesCody, MLDiamond, JM eds. Ecology and Evolution of CommunitiesBelknap Press of Harvard University PressCambridge, MA, USA342444Google Scholar
  6. Franklin, J 1995Predictive vegetation mapping: geographical modelling of biospatial patterns in relation to environmental gradientsProgress in Physical Geography19474499Google Scholar
  7. Forman, RTT 2000Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United StatesConservation Biology143135Google Scholar
  8. Fortin, MJ, Drapeau, P, Legendre, P 1989Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecologyVegetatio83209222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gelbard, JL, Belnap, J 2003Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscapeConservation Biology17420432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godwin K, Sheley R and Clark J (2002) Integrated Noxious Weed Management After Wildfires. Montana State University Extension Service, MT, 9613, 46 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Grime, JP 1979Plant Strategies and Vegetation ProcessesJohn WileyChichester, Britain222Google Scholar
  12. Guisan, A, Zimmermann, NE 2000Predictive habitat distribution models in ecologyEcological Modelling135147186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirzel, A, Guisan, A 2002Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelingEcological Modeling157331341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hubbell, SP 2001The Unified Neutral Theory Of Biodiversity And BiogeographyPrinceton University PressNew Jersey, USA448Google Scholar
  15. Levins, R 1970ExtinctionGerstenhaber, M eds. Some Mathematical Problems in BiologyAmerican Mathematical SocietyProvidence, RI, USA75107Google Scholar
  16. Mack, RN, Thompson, JN 1982Evolution in steppe with few, large, hooved mammalsAmerican Naturalist119757773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maggini, R, Guisan, A, Cherix, D 2002A stratified approach for modelling the distribution of a threatened ant species in the Swiss National ParkBiodiversity and Conservation1121172141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marcus, WA, Milner, G, Maxwell, BD 1998Spotted knapweed distribution in stock camps and trails of the Selway-Bitteroot wildernessGreat Basin Naturalist58156166Google Scholar
  19. NAWMA (2002) North American invasive plant mapping standards. Retrieved from
  20. MacArthur, RH 1972Geographical EcologyHarper and RowNew York, USA269Google Scholar
  21. Maxwell BD, Rew LJ and Aspinall R (2003) Exotic plant survey and monitoring: methods to discover distribution with low frequency occurrence. In: Philippi T and Doren R (eds) Proceedings of Detecting Invasive Exotic Plants, Workshop and Conference, Florida International University, Miami, FL, Feb. 2003Google Scholar
  22. Parendes, LA, Jones, JA 2000Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, OregonConservation Biology146475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pauchard, A, Alaback, PB 2004Influence of elevation, land use, and landscape context on patterns of alien plant invasions along roadsides in protected areas of south-central ChileConservation Biology18238251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pauchard, A, Alaback, PB, Edlund, EG 2003Plant invasions in protected areas at multiple scales: Linaria vulgaris (Scophulariaceae) in the West Yellowstone areaWestern North American Naturalist63416428Google Scholar
  25. US National Park Service (1996) Preserving our natural heritage – a strategic plan for managing invasive non-indigenous plants on national park system lands. Retrieved from
  26. Rejmánek, M, Richardson, DM, Barbour, MG, Crawley, MJ, Hrusa, GF, Moyle, PB, Randall, JM, Simberloff, D, Williamson, M 2002Biological invasions: politics and the discontinuity of ecological terminologyBulletin of the Ecological Society of America83131133Google Scholar
  27. Rew, LJ, Maxwell, DB, Aspinall, RJ 2005Predicting the occurrence of non-indigenous species using environmental and remotely sensed dataWeed Science53236241Google Scholar
  28. Riitters, KH, Wickham, JD 2003How far to the nearest roadFrontier in Ecology and the Environment1125129Google Scholar
  29. Spellerberg, IF 1998Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature reviewGlobal Ecology and Biogeography Letters7317333Google Scholar
  30. Stohlgren, TJ, Quinn, JF, Ruggiero, M, Waggoner, GS 1995Status of biotic inventories in US National ParksBiological Conservation7197106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stolgren TJ, Barnett TD and Simonson SS (2003) Beyond North American weed management standards. Retrieved from
  32. Thompson, SK 2002SamplingJohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.New York, USA343Google Scholar
  33. Trombulak, SC, Frissell, CA 2000Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communitiesConservation Biology141830Google Scholar
  34. Tyser, RW, Key, CH 1988Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessmentNorthwest Science62151160Google Scholar
  35. Tyser, RW, Worley, CA 1992Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (USA)Conservation Biology6253262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vitousek, PM, D’Antonio, CM, Loope, LL, Westbrooks, R 1996Biological invasions as global environmental changeAmerican Scientist84468478Google Scholar
  37. Watkins, RZ, Chen, J, Pickens, J, Brosofske, KD 2003Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscapeConservation Biology17411419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weiher, E, Keddy, PA 1999Assembly rules as trait-based constraints on community compositionWeiher, EKeddy, P eds. Ecological Assembly RulesCambridge University PressUSA251271Google Scholar
  39. Young, JA, Evan, RA, Major, J 1972Alien plants in the Great BasinJournal of Range Management25194201Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa J. Rew
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bruce D. Maxwell
    • 1
  • Frank L. Dougher
    • 1
  • Richard Aspinall
    • 2
  1. 1.Land Resources and Environmental Sciences DepartmentMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  2. 2.Geographic Information and Analysis CenterMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations