Abstract
Wetland managers benefit from monitoring data of sufficient precision and accuracy to assess wildlife habitat conditions and to evaluate and learn from past management decisions. For large-scale monitoring programs focused on waterbirds (waterfowl, wading birds, secretive marsh birds, and shorebirds), precision and accuracy of habitat measurements must be balanced with fiscal and logistic constraints. We evaluated a set of protocols for rapid, visual estimates of key waterbird habitat characteristics made from the wetland perimeter against estimates from (1) plots sampled within wetlands, and (2) cover maps made from aerial photographs. Estimated percent cover of annuals and perennials using a perimeter-based protocol fell within 10 percent of plot-based estimates, and percent cover estimates for seven vegetation height classes were within 20 % of plot-based estimates. Perimeter-based estimates of total emergent vegetation cover did not differ significantly from cover map estimates. Post-hoc analyses revealed evidence for observer effects in estimates of annual and perennial covers and vegetation height. Median time required to complete perimeter-based methods was less than 7 percent of the time needed for intensive plot-based methods. Our results show that rapid, perimeter-based assessments, which increase sample size and efficiency, provide vegetation estimates comparable to more intensive methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Block WM, With KA, Morrison ML (1987) On measuring bird habitat: influence of observer variability and sample size. Condor 89:241–251
Brown S, Hickey C, Harrington B, Gill R (eds) (2001) The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd edn. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet
Burger J (1985) Habitat selection in temperate marsh-nesting birds. In: Cody ML (ed) Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, Toronto, pp 253–281
Colwell MA, Dodd SL (1995) Waterbird communities and habitat relationships in coastal pastures of northern California. Conserv Biol 9:827–834
Congalton RG, Green K (2009) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices, 2nd edn. CRC Press, New York
Conway CJ (2009) Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocols, version 2009-2. Tucson, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Wildlife Research Report #2009-02
Conway CJ, Sulzman C (2007) Status and habitat use of the California black rail in the southwestern USA. Wetlands 27:987–998
Dahl TE (1990) Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss.htm. Accessed 15 Sept 2014
Dahl TE (2006) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Day RW, Quinn GP (1989) Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol Monogr 59:433–463
Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:49–72
Etchberger RC, Krausman PR (1997) Evaluation of five methods for measuring desert vegetation. Wildlife Soc B 25:604–609
Harrell Jr. FE (2014) Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 3.14.0
Hohman WL, Ankney CD, Gordon DH (1992) Ecology and management of postbreeding waterfowl. In: Batt BDJ, Afton AD, Ankney CD, Johnson DH, Kadlec JA, Krapu GL (eds) Ecology and management of breeding waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 128–189
Kaufmann PR, Levine P, Robison EG, Seeliger C, Peck DV (1999) Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/620/R-99/003
Kennedy KA, Addison PA (1987) Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring. J Ecol 75:151–157
Klimeš L (2003) Scale-dependent variation in visual estimates of grassland plant cover. J Veg Sci 14:815–821
Kross J, Kaminski RM, Reinecke KJ, Penny EJ, Pearse AT (2008) Moist-soil seed abundance in managed wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. J Wildlife Manag 72:707–714
Kushlan JA, Steinkamp MJ, Parsons KC, Capp J, Cruz MA, Coulter M, Davidson I, Dickson L, Edelson N, Elliot R, Erwin RM, Hatch S, Kress S, Milko R, Miller S, Mills K, Paul R, Phillips R, Saliva JE, Sydeman B, Trapp J, Wheeler J, Wohl K (2002) Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D.C.
Lenington S (1979) Predators and blackbirds: the “uncertainty principle” in field biology. Auk 96:190–192
Lesser VM, Kalsbeek WD (1999) Non-sampling errors in environmental surveys. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 4:473–488
Lyons JE, Runge MC, Laskowski HP, Kendall WL (2008) Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. J Wildlife Manag 72:1683–1692
Meese RJ, Tomich PA (1992) Dots on the rocks: a comparison of percent cover estimation methods. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 165:59–73
Naugle DE, Johnson RR, Estey ME, Higgins KF (2001) A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21:1–17
Naylor LW, Eadie JM, Smith WD, Eicholz M, Gray MJ (2005) A simple method to predict seed yield in moist-soil habitats. Wildlife Soc B 33:1335–1341
Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologist. Cambridge University Press, New York
R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing v 2.15.0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.org/
Rejmánek M, Pitcairn MJ (2002) When is eradication of exotic plants a realistic goal? In: Veitch CR, Clout MN (eds) Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN, Cambridge, pp 249–253
Riffell SR, Gutzwiller KJ, Anderson SH (1996) Does repeated human intrusion cause cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecol Appl 6:492–505
Smith LM, Haukos DA, Prather RM (2004) Avian response to vegetative pattern in playa wetlands during winter. Wildlife Soc B 32:474–480
Soulliere GJ, Loges BW, Dunton EM, Luukkonen DR, Eichholz MW, Koch KE (2013) Monitoring waterfowl in the Midwest during the non-breeding period: challenges, priorities, and recommendations. J Fish Wildlife Manag 4:395–405
Sykes JM, Horrill AD, Mountford MD (1983) Use of visual cover assessments as quantitative estimators of some British woodland taxa. J Ecol 71:437–450
Thompson WL, White GC, Gowan C (1998) Monitoring vertebrate populations. Academic Press Inc, San Diego
Voights DK (1976) Aquatic invertebrate abundance in relation to changing marsh vegetation. Am Midl Nat 95:313–322
Weber LM, Haig SM (1996) Shorebird use of South Carolina managed and natural coastal wetlands. J Wildlife Manag 60:73–82
Weller MW (1999) Wetland birds: habitat resources and conservation implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgments
Jennifer Casey, Jorge Coppen, Eric Lonsdorf, Tim Jones, Clint Moore, John Stanton, Wayne Thogmartin, and Bill Thompson provided feedback on study design. Field data collected by Susan Campbell, Ben Carlson, Tim Freiday, Matt McAdams, Jeff Moore, and Jamie O’Brien. Paul Castelli, John Coluccy, Mick Hanan, Sara Vacek, and Linda Ziemba provided administrative and logistical support. Sarah Jacobi designed a database for field data entry. Aerial photographs captured by Brian Lubinski and processed by Mary Mitchell. Michael Reed, Mark Nelson, Greg Soulliere, and an anonymous reviewer provided comments that improved the manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Funding
Funding was provided by the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Migratory Bird Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tavernia, B.G., Lyons, J.E., Loges, B.W. et al. An evaluation of rapid methods for monitoring vegetation characteristics of wetland bird habitat. Wetlands Ecol Manage 24, 495–505 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9476-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9476-5