Laura Bourgeau-Chavez and Amanda Grimm, Michigan Technological Research Institute Jason Carlson, Applied Ecological Services November 11, 2015

Transcription

1 Remote Sensing Series Part I: Monitoring and Assessment of the Treatment and Control of non-native Phragmites australis in terms of Habitat Restoration Laura Bourgeau-Chavez and Amanda Grimm, Michigan Technological Research Institute Jason Carlson, Applied Ecological Services November 11, 2015 The webinar is listen only. You can listen by phone or through your computer s speakers. The webinar will be recorded and posted at greatlakesphragmites.net We will begin shortly

2 Monitoring and Assessment of the Treatment and Control of Phragmites australis in terms of Habitat Restoration MTRI: Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Colin Brooks, Amanda Grimm, Sarah Endres, Elizabeth Banda, Eleanor Serocki, Liz Schold, Michael Battaglia AES: Jason Carlson, Steve Apfelbaum, Michael McGraw, Ry Thompson, Fugui Wang CMU: Donald Uzarski Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative Webinar 11 Nov 2015

3 Introduction Millions of dollars have been spent on treatment of Phragmites infested wetlands with herbicide and other control methods But, few studies or management efforts have included standardized monitoring or an assessment of the effectiveness of treatment in terms of habitat restoration Therefore, a standardized method for assessment of the effectiveness of treatment is needed for adaptive management and control Field and remote sensing data were analyzed in a nested design to help develop standardized methods for monitoring treatment success and provide recommendations Saginaw Bay Walking through an Untreated Stand of Phragmites, Summer 2014

4 Remote Sensing/GIS Adaptive Managment Information needed for landscape-scale management and control of Invasive Phragmites { 1. What is the current Phragmites distribution? 2. Where are the leading edges? 3. Where have past-treatments occurred? { 4. What was the effectiveness of past treatments (i.e. where is there regrowth/standing dead, what other species have come in post-treatment)? Has the habitat been restored? 5. What is the definition of success? }Remote Sensing/ Field Monitoring 6. What other factors drive the invasion and/or inhibit effectiveness of treatment and can these be mitigated?

5 Background and Approach Scientific literature shows a lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of treatment Most have observed only post-treatment presence/absence of the invader Few evaluate beyond 1-2 years post-treatment Few studies address issue in the landscape context 2, 3 Post treatment surveys concentrate on number of Phragmites stems 1 Studies do not focus on recovery of native ecosystems Our goal was to assess effectiveness of management controls through scientific evaluation of the changes to habitat biodiversity Treatment effectiveness was assessed in a nested design of scales, from field surveys to high resolution aerial imagery to moderate resolution satellite imagery. Remote sensing and ground surveys help estimate effectiveness of control at Landscape scale Comparison of Treated and Untreated Phragmites wetlands allows us to measure resilience of species abundance and diversity 1)Reid et al 2009; 2) Hazelton et al 2014; 3) Hazelton GLPC webinar 30 Sept 2014

6 Tiered Approach to Monitoring Remote Sensing Monitoring Field Monitoring High-Resolution, multispectral aerial Imagery (July/Sept, 2014) Vegetation Mapping at 15 cm resolution Field Surveying: Vegetation, Amphibians, Birds (April-July, 2014/2015) WorldView-2 acquisition (July 2015) Vegetation Mapping at submeter resolution Assessment of Post- Treatment Recovery and Biodiversity (April-July, 2014/2015) Satellite Remote Sensing Landsat-PALSAR-2 (2014, 2015) Vegetation Mapping at 30 m resolution Adaptive Management Recommendations (2015)

7 Study Areas (1) Green Bay, WI where 3,300 acres were treated with blanket herbicide treatment/follow up in ; (2) Saginaw Bay, MI where treatment occurs by land ownership, with many areas treated in Fall 2013

8

9 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Site Selection Identified treated sites based on MDEQ permits, communications with agencies and landowners Paired treated sites with untreated controls of similar hydrogeomorphology, ecology, hydrology Pre-treatment data available at some sites where Phragmites treatment areas coincided with GLCWC monitoring points; Used GLCWC monitoring protocols post-treatment to obtain comparable data 9 site pairs (18 total sites) in Saginaw Bay; 6 treated sites with 4 controls (10 total sites) in Green Bay Treatment 461 Spring 14 9 bird species, 1 focal marsh species in vegetation IBI: 24 Control 461 Spring 14 7 bird species, 2 focal marsh species in vegetation IBI: 17

10 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Biodiversity Data Collection and Processing Amphibian and bird diversity Surveyed using point count protocols Calculated Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) developed and recommended by the GLCWC for assessing community condition Also analyzed simple species diversity for anurans Vegetation diversity Calculated the GLCWC vegetation IBI (standardized measure of community condition), native species diversity, site-wide Phragmites cover, Phragmites cover in the emergent plant zone, mean conservatism index (measure of community intactness) and mean conservatism ratio (measures degradation of the site by invasions)

11 GLCWC Vegetation Sampling Design Transect design 25m from upland edge to 25m into bay m in length Three zones: Wet Meadow Emergent Submergent 11

12 Site Name Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Amphibians Birds Vegetation Pretreatment Post- Treatment Saginaw Bay Pretreatment Post- Treatment Pretreatment Post- Treatment 499A 2014, , , C 2011* 2014, , , Awest 2012* 2014, * 2014, * 2014, Aeast , , * A , , , Ceast 2014, , , A , , , A 2014, * 2014, , A Green Bay KE 2013, , 2014, PE 2013, , 2014, LO * * 2014, LO * * 2014, * 2014 LI , *, 2014*, DXT 2011* 2015* 2011* 2013, 2014*, 2015* 2011* 2014* *data only available for treated site, not control

13 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Statistical framework: comparison of 3 designs Post-treatment data available for 15 treated wetlands across 2 bays Spatial-matched pairs design compares post-treatment condition between matched pairs of treated and control sites, Diagram from Schwarz 2005

14 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Statistical framework: comparison of 3 designs Pre-treatment data available for a subset of those sites (varies among amphibian/bird/veg) Temporal baseline design compares the same sites before and after treatment Diagram from Schwarz 2005

15 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Statistical framework: comparison of 3 designs Paired pre-treatment data available for an even smaller subset Enables classical before-after control impact (BACI) design with highest statistical rigor BACI Design Diagram from Schwarz 2014

16 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Amphibian Community Condition

17 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Amphibian Diversity: Spatial Matched-Pairs Design No significant differences in IBI or species diversity between control and treated sites post-treatment Pairwise, no obvious patterns across treatment types 2014: higher diversity in the treated site at 4 pairs, in the control site at 6 pairs, and equal diversity at 3 pairs 2015 (Saginaw only): higher diversity in the treated site in 4 pairs and in the control site at 5 pairs

18 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Amphibian Diversity: Temporal Baseline Design Compared values before and after treatment using a paired t- test No significant changes in amphibian IBI Amphibian species diversity decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001) in both bays.

19 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Amphibian Diversity: BACI Design Mean BACI effect (estimated by two-factor mixed-effect ANOVA) was not significant for IBI or species diversity Amphibian Monitoring Takeaways Species diversity, but not IBI, shows significant decrease over time choice of indicator metric is important! Phragmites treatment appears to have no significant effect on amphibian diversity for the two years of study Highlights value of control sites: looking at change over time in treated sites alone, we might assume a negative effect of treatment, but control sites show this is not the case

20 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Bird Community Condition Bird Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) calculation Mean values are calculated for relative abundance of non-aerial foragers, relative abundance of marsh nesting obligates (MNO), and species richness of area-sensitive marsh nesting obligates (AMNO; bitterns, rails, coots, cranes, etc.) Standardized and combined to create a metric ranging from 0-100

21 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Bird Diversity: Spatial Matched-Pairs Design On average, paired treated and control sites did not differ significantly in bird IBI values, regardless of whether a stressor gradient was included as a covariate, whether treatment was stratified by treatment type, or whether all pairs were considered together or separated by bay At the pairwise level, IBI was consistently higher in the control site at 6 pairs (including all 3 mowing sites) and in the treated site at 2 pairs, with interannual variations for the remaining pairs

22 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Bird Diversity: Spatial Matched-Pairs Design Treated sites that had been mowed were associated with significantly lower bird IBI values than either unmowed treated sites or untreated sites (p = 0.03)

23 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Bird Diversity: Temporal Baseline Design No significant changes over time Bird Diversity: BACI Design BACI effect was not significant

24 Field Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Bird Monitoring Takeaways Large year-to-year variations require either more surveys per year (pseudo-replicates) or more years of surveys to increase statistical power Indicator taxa respond differently and on different timescales. The GLCWC bird IBI emphasizes cryptic marsh nesting obligate species (rails, bitterns), which may benefit from Phragmites treatment over the long term but not the short term if mowing removes the thick emergent vegetation they prefer. More suitable sampling approach may be applied when monitoring begins prior to treatment

25 Vegetation Monitoring in Green and Saginaw Bays Measuring success: Is Phragmites cover lower in treated sites compared to similar, nearby untreated sites? Work is underway to assess Phragmites cover post-treatment and biodiversity of vegetation Qualitative analysis from field photos and aerial imagery/obliques shows mixed success

26 Saginaw Bay in 2015 Treated Site Untreated Dense Site

27 Imagery Port Austin Saginaw Bay Site 461 Treatment 461 Spring 14 9 bird species, 1 focal marsh species in vegetation IBI: 24 Control 461 Spring B 461A 7 bird species, 2 focal marsh species in vegetation IBI: : higher amphibian IBI in 461A than 461B (100 vs. 65) 2014: equal IBI

28 Phragmites in Port Austin, Site 461 Treated and mowed in 2012, photo in B Untreated Site Treated Site 461A 2014: Phragmites cover at treated site 1/3 that at control site 2015: Phragmites cover similar at the two sites 28

29 Treatment and Control Site Comparisons in 2015 Untreated 515A Treated 515B Annual mowing since 990s, tractor herbicide in mid-summer In 2015, much higher bird IBI at untreated site (19.6 vs. 91.7), likely due to lack of cover for wading birds at treated site, but many more plant species recorded in treated site (52 vs. 23) 29

30 September 2015 UAV and Field Reconnaissance Saginaw Bay Shoreline Untreated Phragmites Mixed Wetland-post treatment Untreated Phragmites Treated 515B Untreated 515A 40 acre Treated site mowed since late 1990s and herbicide treated for 4 years ( ) 52 Plant Species Landowners report observing huge change in bird species post-herbicide Paired control site with untreated Phragmites 23 Plant species

31 AES Oblique 2014 Aerial Images Site 515B treated Site 515A untreated

32 Remote Sensing Mapping Satellite Sensors Radar ~24 cm wavelength L-band PALSAR-2 (10 m resolution) Optical multi-wavelength Landsat 8 (30 m resolution) Worldview-2 (1 to 2 meter resolution) Aerial Imaging AES multi-wavelength system 15 cm resolution Timely collections

33 Machine Learning Algorithms and/or Object Based Image Analysis Imagery Stack and Ancillary Data spring summer fall Classifier Land Cover Training Data Wetland Map Field Data Aerial Image Interp.

34 Moderate Resolution Radar and Optical Sensor Mapping PALSAR-2 Fall and Spring Imagery Sept and April Landsat 8 Fall and Spring Sept 9 14 and May 7 15 Large area covered by single scene Classification quick Not able to capture small (<0.25 acre) stands

35

36 July 2015 Worldview 2 Image Sub-meter WorldView-2 compared to Landsat/PALSAR-2 Mapping

37 15 cm Aerial Imagery compared to Landsat/PALSAR-2 Mapping

38 15 cm Aerial Imagery compared to Worldview and Landsat/PALSAR-2 Mapping AES June 2014 Image

39 Multi-temporal: Timing and Vegetation - Phenology Summer Fall

40 Multi-temporal, Object-based Classification Process Legend Aerial Spraying Class Name Water Emergent Wetland Tree Shrub Tree 2 Wet Prairie Phragmites Live Phragmites Detritus 2013 NAIP 2013 Spring 2013 Fall Phragmites Dead Stems Impervious Wet Meadow I Wet Meadow I Cattail Vegetation Map Legend Aerial Spraying Class Names Phragmites Live Phragmites Detritus Phragmites Dead Stems Phragmities Map

41 Field Work: Biodiversity-> Amphibian, Bird, Vegetation Legend Aerial Spraying Class Names Phragmites Live Phragmites Detritus Phragmites Dead Stems

42 Pensaukee Site Untreated Treated Coastal Strand Treated/Untreated

43 Little Tail Point Site Treated Untreated Back bay and Sand Spit Treated/Untreated

44 Ken Euers Site Treated Untreated River mouth Treated/Untreated

45 Using Maps to Inform Adaptive Management Legend Aerial Spraying Class Names Phragmites Live Phragmites Detritus Phragmites Dead Stems Areas of standing dead Phrag- cutting, mulching or prescribed burn Areas of dense thatch require mulching, raking or prescribed burn Medium sized areas Phrag Re-sprout- ATV herbicide Edges missed by herbicide treatment ATV/backpack herbicide Large Areas of dense Live Phrag- Helicopter or ATV Herbicide Small areas of Phrag Re sprout- Backpack herbicide

46 Using Maps to Inform Adaptive Management Helicopter or ATV Herbicide ATV/backpack herbicide

47 Comparison of Benefits/Limitations of Remote Sensing/Mapping at various scales Source Resolution MMU Capture Leading edges? Cost of Imagery (High-Low) Timeliness/ limitations Aerial Imaging Worldview 2 Rapid Eye/ Radarsat-2 15 cm 15 cm All Medium High 1.85 m 2 m many Free for Federal Agencies 5-8 m 0.05 ha Cloud cover and satellite orbits many High Cloud cover and satellite orbits Landsat/ PALSAR m 0.12 Ha some Landsatfree; PALSAR-2 (high) Cloud cover for Landsat and satellite orbits/collection plans

48 Summary Aerial and Satellite imagery can be very effective tools in mapping extent of Phragmites invasion, standing dead, dead fallen stems, leading edges and other vegetation cover to put treatment areas into landscape context Choice of resolution and data source needs to fit the needs of the resource managers/researchers Monitoring methods need to be developed specifically for assessing treatment effects We used the GLCWC protocols to take advantage of pretreatment data that had already been collected and for continuity Long term monitoring is really necessary to see the effects on habitat biodiversity and control sites will help to distinguish natural trends from treatment effects

49 Next Steps Complete the Vegetation Biodiversity Analysis Develop recommendations for monitoring and adaptive management based on literature/research Webinar Part 2: Applying adaptive management to the control of invasive Phragmites australis in the Midwest Thursday December 10 th 2-3 pm Working with land managers to develop a strategic approach to adaptive management for Phragmites control and restoration that includes mapping, monitoring and modeling

50 Thank you Questions?

51 Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, Adjunct Assistant Professor The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Michigan Technological University Michigan Tech Research Institute 3600 Green Ct. Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI (734) Amanda Grimm, Michigan Technological Research Institute, Jason Carlson, Applied Ecological Services,

52 Remote Sensing Series Part II: Applying Adaptive Management to the Control of non-native Phragmites australis in the Midwest Colin Brooks, Michigan Technological Research Institute December 10, 2015 Register now!

53 Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative