Implementing Adaptive Management and Monitoring for Restoration of Invasive Phragmites Comprehensive Invasive Phragmites Management Planning: PI:

Transcription

1 Implementing Adaptive Management and Monitoring for Restoration of Invasive Phragmites - Funded by EPA Comprehensive Invasive Phragmites Management Planning: Funded by MISGP PI: Laura L. Bourgeau-Chavez, PhD, Co-Is: Michael Billmire, Amanda Grimm, Sarah Endres, Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI), Michigan Technological University, , lchavez@mtu.edu; MSU Co-I: Phyllis Higman, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), Michigan State University, higmanp@michigan.gov ; UNI Co-I: Kenneth Elgersma, PhD, University of Northern Iowa, kenneth.elgersma@uni.edu UM Co-I: William Currie, PhD, University of Michigan, wcurrie@umich.edu ; Texas A&M Co-I: Jason Martina, PhD, Texas A&M University; jason.marti993@gmail.com Collaborators: (1) Michelle Vander Haar USFWS, (2) Laura Ogar Bay County, (3) Kip Cronk, Emily Schaefer & Fallon Januska: Saginaw Bay CISMA and (4) Jeremiah Heise MDNR

2 Motivation for Project Current Management Efforts: Mostly focused on single or groups of Phragmites patches Lack explicit management goals Lack multi-year planning Lack high resolution Phragmites distribution maps No or inadequate monitoring ******************** Rarely measure ecosystem response Lack consideration of landscape context Rarely address root causes of invasion Yet millions of dollars are spent controlling Phragmitesinfested wetlands every year.

3 We certainly do have success stories. We may be wasting money in some places, by using ineffective techniques. We may be causing unintended consequences. We can t tell our true story to critics and funders. We aren t taking full advantage of the opportunity to improve management through monitoring and research.

4 Project Goals Build partnership Local managers Researchers Remote sensing experts Ecological modelers Develop a regional, long-term strategic plan for management and restoration of invasive Phragmitesinfested shoreline ecosystems in Saginaw Bay.

5 Partnership & strategic plan for the Bay Local, regional knowledge Broad scale mapping High resolution maps from remote sensing Best control practices Monitoring protocols + Models of N-loading Models of Landscape connectivity Mondrian wetland modeling potential management scenarios Adaptive plan: specific treatment techniques and time intervals based upon site specific conditions there are no one-size fits-all treatment or monitoring protocol incorporate nutrient management** **buffer high nutrient inputs; biomass removal

6 Stakeholder Meeting Measures of success and Monitoring Priorities and Sustaining Management Control methods and Unintended Consequences Pathways, Reinvasion, Secondary Invasions and Decontamination

7 Since we manage Phragmites pretty much the same way most of the time, management goals don t really matter. Since funders don t provide much money for monitoring, we shouldn t worry about doing it. If I can demonstrate 80% control of my stand of Phragmites, I have been successful. In spite of our best efforts to prioritize, treatments are often driven by logistical constraints and funder priorities.

8 Seeds have been shown to be a significant factor in the spread of invasive Phragmites, but managers typically herbicide Phragmites which already has produced seed. Is that a problem and can we do anything about it? What should/can we do with the biomass? When, where and how should imazapyr be used? How does cutting Phragmites multiple times a year affect its ability to absorb herbicides? How do you make the final kill in stands that have been reduced to a few small sprouts?

9 Name three potential seconday invaders. Do you decontaminate?

10 1. Monitoring Distribution of Phragmites australis and Treatment Effects from High Resolution Satellite Imagery and Drones 1. Mondrian wetland modeling, something about Nitrogen and other things that may help you fine-tune your treatments 2. Go over several monitoring protocols still looking for protocols that are practical enough that they will be used, but good enough that they will provide the data we need to tell our stories of success or failure and ultimately improve management success. 3. Discussion

11 Monitoring Reviewing peer-reviewed, gray literature Gathering input from Phragmites managers Testing several protocols of varying intensity Quantify costs and compare; identify pros and cons, tie to specific management goals

12 Monitoring Reviewing peer-reviewed, gray literature Gathering input from Phragmites managers Testing several protocols of varying intensity Quantify costs and compare; identify pros and cons, tie to specific management goals

13 Monitoring Reviewing peer-reviewed, gray literature Gathering input from Phragmites managers Testing several protocols of varying intensity Quantify costs and compare; identify pros and cons, tie to specific management goals

14 Monitoring Tier 1: Qualitative photomonitoring plus key attributes, rank aesthetics, recreation, & safety Tier 2: Quantitative belt transects: systematic recording of wetland zone, cover of morphotypes (P, U, D, O, B) every 2 meters, Phragmites density, height, stem diameter in 5 plots Tier 3: Quantitative GLCWMP (Uzarski et al.) A. abiotic factors, stem diameter & density, % cover of all species present B. abiotic factors, stem diameter & density, % cover of morphotypes and number of species in each type

15 Tier 1 Monitoring Photo-monitoring This is a qualitative monitoring protocol Site Data, Sampler, Date, Time, Weather Estimate % cover of: Phragmites Desirable species Undesirable species Permanent photo points; where is the best place to do this? Record treatment details

16 Tier 1 Monitoring: Expanded photo-monitoring Aesthetic impact: Rec. impact: Safety impact: Nat. community habitat, cover.. These can change based upon specific management goals; e.g., birds, fish, native diversity, open water, beach, water quality, etc. Severe Moderate Mild Severe Moderate Mild Severe Moderate Mild Severe Moderate Mild These all have ranking definitions Simple, lower cost Less ecol, bot, zoo skills required Can provide striking evidence of apparent success Lacks detail that may be important Assess the site for secondary invaders and be prepared!

17 Tier 2 Monitoring Belt Transects: walk transect and record zone and dominant cover every 2 meters Zone: Emergent Zone: Wet Meadow: Submergent: E M S Cover: Phragmites live: P Phragmites dead: PD Desirable natives: D Undesirables: U Open water: W Bare soil/mud B Relative frequency M O R E I N F O R M A T I V E!! Undesirables: Non native cat-tail: CT Flowering rush: FR European frog-bit: FB Desirables: Native bulrushes: Native sedges: Native rushes: Native grasses: Native forbs: Skill level NB NS NR NG NF Cost, time Number of transects??

18 Tier 2 Monitoring Customizable based upon management goals and desired future conditions. Forces monitoring crew to walk through the Phragmites and capture variation that cannot be seen from the edge. We added plot data to gather more information Zone (E, W, S) GPS point Photos (Azimuth, Nadir) Water level Leaf sample Soil sample # of Phragmites stems Stem diameters Power of data depends on # of transects. With plot data - not much faster than Tier 3 monitoring; but less expertise needed.

19 Tier 3 Monitoring Most Detailed Transects perpendicular to gradient OR deliberately placed across patchiness of treatment area (use remote sensing to help with this) 5 1m 2 plots evenly spaced in each zone of wetland wet meadow, emergent marsh, submergent marsh Abiotic factors and % cover of all species

20 Tier 3 Monitoring All species percent cover High level of expertise; most time; most detailed data # of transects and plots important for power of data.

21 Phragmites Detroit International treatment Refuge; in Detroit International Standard Phragmites Wildlife treatment Refuge

22 European frog-bit

23

24

25 Ted Putz Park - Before Ted Putz Park - After

26

27