A rapid assessment method for ground layer coastal vegetation
We aim to test a rapid ecological assessment method to monitor regenerating coastal vegetation without sacrificing accuracy. We estimated species frequency in vegetation plots using traditional point intercept methods. We also tested a rapid, digital method to take high-resolution digital photographs of plots. We navigated among plot locations using a sub-meter Differential Global Positioning System instead of using permanent plot markers, and analyzed plot photographs in a point intercept manner (i.e., grid) in Geographic Information Systems software. We assessed species frequency in 52 permanent plots using traditional and digital methods. Traditional methods required 39.2 min per plot and digital methods required 4.6 min per plot. Estimates of frequency from traditional methods were substantially higher than those from digital methods for permanent plots, so we used an independent assessment of vegetation coverage to calibrate the utility of digital methods. A logistic regression equation can be used to compare historical traditional estimates to those collected digitally. Digital point intercept methods were successfully used for rapid ecological assessment. The primary advantages of digital methods include overwhelming efficiency compared to traditional methods, a resultant increase in sample size, and the ability to recover more accurate estimates of species frequency. Disadvantages of digital methods include a restriction of use for ground layer vegetation and positional inaccuracies introduced through sub-meter navigation. While traditional methods are less accurate in estimating species frequency, they are ideal for capturing accurate temporal trends in vegetation growth since they rely upon the use of permanent plot markers.
KeywordsCoastal monitoring Image analysis Digital point sampling Rapid ecological assessment Vegetation monitoring
We thank the Student Conservation Association interns for their assistance with field surveys: Courtney Buckley, Jill Peters, Gina Zanarini. We also thank National Park Service staff for field and logistical support: Michael Bilecki, Kelsey Taylor, Michelle Blydenburgh, and Thomas Alexander. We thank Samuel Cox and the journal editor for improving a draft of this manuscript. The authors do not declare any Conflicts of Interest. We also thank the State University of New York (SUNY) Research Foundation and the Department of Environmental and Forest Biology at SUNY ESF for logistical support. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This research was funded through Hurricane Sandy disaster relief appropriations to the National Park Service (agreement number: P14AC00469). C. Kilheffer was partially supported by a Virginia Sea Grant Fellowship (R/71858 J).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Blake ES, Kimberlain TB, Berg RJ, Cangialosi JP, Bevan II JL (2013) Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Sandy. United States National Hurricane Center [report no. AL182012], Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Booth DT, Cox SE, Louhaichi M, Johnson DE (2004) Technical note: lightweight camera stand for close-to-earth remote sensing. J of Range Manag 57:675–678. https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-5028(2004)057[0675:TNLCSF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 [CFR-36] (2018) Title 36–Parks, Forests, and Public Property. § 2.12(a)(3)Google Scholar
- Ehrenfeld JG (1990) Dynamics and processes of barrier island vegetation. Aquat Sci 2:437–480Google Scholar
- Elzinga CJ, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW (1998) Measuring & monitoring plant populations. Bureau of Land Management [Technical Reference 1730–1], Denver, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
- Fennessy MS, Jacobs AD, Kentula ME (2004) Review of Rapid Methods for Assessing Wetland Condition. United States Environmental Protection Agency [report no. EPA/620/R-04/009], Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Green DR, Hagon JJ, Gómez C, Gregory BJ (2019) Using Low-Cost UAVs for Environmental Monitoring, Mapping, and Modelling: Examples From the Coastal Zone pg 465–501 in Coastal Management, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
- Hapke CJ, Brenner O, Hehre R, Reynolds BJ (2013) Coastal change from Hurricane Sandy and the 2012–13 winter storm season—Fire Island, New York. United States Geological Survey [report no. 1231], Reston, VA, USAGoogle Scholar
- Kilheffer CR, Underwood HB, Ries L, Raphael J, Leopold DJ (2019a) Deer do not affect short-term rates of vegetation recovery in overwash fans on Fire Island after Hurricane Sandy. Ecology & Evolution, in press Google Scholar
- Kilheffer CR, Underwood HB, Ries L, Raphael J, Leopold DJ (2019b) Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) exclusion on plant recovery in overwash fans after a severe coastal storm. AoB Plants, in press Google Scholar
- Landres P, Barns C, Dennis JG, Devine T, Geissler P, McCasland CS, Merigliano L, Seastrand J, Swain R (2008) Keeping it wild: an interagency strategy to monitor trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. United States Department of Agriculture [report no. RMRS-GTR-212], Fort Collins, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
- Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical Ecology. 2nd English ed. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Maun A (2009) The biology of coastal sand dunes. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Miller RF, Chambers JC, Pellant M (2015) A field guide for rapid assessment of post-wildfire recovery potential in sagebrush and piñon-juniper ecosystems in the Great Basin: Evaluating resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses and predicting vegetation response. United States Department of Agriculture [report no. RMRS-GTR-338], Fort Collins, CO, USAGoogle Scholar
- Pendleton EA, Williams SJ, Thieler ER (2004) Coastal vulnerability and assessment of Fire Island National Seashore to sea-level rise. United States Geological Survey [report no. 03–439], Woods Hole, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
- Roman CT, James-Pirri MJ, Heltshe JF (2001) Monitoring salt marsh vegetation: a protocol for the long-term ecosystem monitoring program at Cape Cod National Seashore. Technical Report, WellfleetGoogle Scholar
- Sayre R, Roca E, Sedaghatkish G, Young B, Keel S, Roca RL, Sheppard S (1999) Nature in focus: rapid ecological assessment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Scarelli FM, Sistilli F, Fabbri S, Cantelli L, Barboza EG, Gabbianelli G (2017) Seasonal dune and beach monitoring using photogrammetry from UAV surveys to apply in the ICZM on the Ravenna coast (Emilia-Romagna, Italy). Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 7:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2017.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stuckey IH, Gould LL (2000) Coastal plants from Cape Cod to Cape Canaveral. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
- Zar JH (2010) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar