FOURTEEN YEARS OF SPATIAL DATA FROM PLANTS OF CONCERN: WHAT ARE WE LEARNING?

Transcription

1 FOURTEEN YEARS OF SPATIAL DATA FROM PLANTS OF CONCERN: WHAT ARE WE LEARNING? Rachel Goad, Manager, Plants of Concern Shannon Still, Postdoctoral Researcher, Chicago Botanic Garden Jeremie Fant, Conservation Scientist, Chicago Botanic Garden Anna Braum, Research Assistant, Plants of Concern

2 Plants of Concern Natural areas Tri state Chicago region Addressing Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan

3 Plants of Concern Trained citizen scientists Standardized data Rare plant populations Partnerships Volunteer groups Federal, state, municipal Private landowners Researchers

4 POC s spatial data Intensive data management Additional training for volunteers Basics of spatial data Datum, Coordinate System Tested phone applications, units

5 GPS Training Attendees felt: 76% more knowledgeable about GPS 88% more comfortable with GPS for POC

6 POC s spatial data Adding data filters Visual check of population location Encoded check of population location Web mapping module in the works

7

8 Scope 288 species 1170 populations 15 counties 14 year dataset Answer questions Provide baseline for future studies

9 Scope Populations cover ~2 contiguous mi2 Ranging across 5900 mi2 Many distributed small populations

10 Questions Where do rare species occur? What can we learn about their niche? Where else might they occur? What else can we learn from POC data?

11 Land cover Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision

12 Land Cover of POC populations Agriculture (7.4%) Floodplain Forest (3.5%) Native woody (2.4%) Prairie (17.3%) Savanna (14.2%) Unassoc. Grassy (10.4%) Unassoc. Woody (3.6%) Undefined (6.8%) Upland Forest (5.3%) Urban Grass (0.3%) Urban Land (6.0%) Water (3.7%) Wetland (19.0%)

13 Land Cover of POC populations Agriculture (7.4%) Floodplain Forest (3.5%) Native woody (2.4%) Prairie (17.3%) Savanna (14.2%) Unassoc. Grassy (10.4%) Unassoc. Woody (3.6%) Undefined (6.8%) Upland Forest (5.3%) Urban Grass (0.3%) Urban Land (6.0%) Water (3.7%) Wetland (19.0%)

14 What can we learn about species from where they grow? Identification of a niche Soil preferences Available water capacity Organic matter ph Silt, sand, clay % Comparisons between species net.com

15 Gravel hills Glacial outwash deposits islands of gravel Well drained, calcareous Often with associated fens Have become more isolated with mining pressure Support POC monitored species

16 Species comparison Gravel hill species dry Hill s Thistle (Cirsium hillii) Wooly Milkweed (Asclepias lanuginosa) Fen species wet White Lady s Slipper (Cypripedium candidum) Hill s Thistle Emily Kapler Wooly Milkweed Carol Freeman Lady s Slipper Carol Freeman

17 POC locationsavailable Water Capacity Cation Exchange Capacity

18 Niche identification: gravel hill species

19 NMDS Ordination Reduce many variables to two axes Visualize similarity/ difference between sites

20 Gravel hill species (Asclepias lanuginosa, Cirsium hillii) Milkweed is nested in Thistle Same habitat Species are statistically distinct Driven by silt and sand

21 White Lady s Slipper (Cypripedium candidum) Cluster near CEC, Organic Matter Ideal habitat The species has not done well at this sandy site

22 Population trends in relation to ordination Trend Thistle (Cirsium) NMDS 1 Lady s slipper (Cypripedium)

23 Habitat Suitability Modeling Can we identify suitable habitat across the region, using POC data? Use what we know about a plants niche Find existing plants and habitat Identify potential reintroduction locations

24 Gravel Hill Habitat Suitability Modeling Identify suitable habitat for Cirsium hillii Asclepias lanuginosa

25 Habitat Suitability Multi Criteria Evaluation Model Extract data: soil attributes land cover hydrology flow impervious surfaces distance to edge Classify gravel hill prairie habitat Model using 6 weighting structures

26

27 Habitat Suitability Refinement of criteria Remove flow, impervious surfaces, edge distances Ground truthing Attempts with other species

28 Savanna Blazing Star Liatris scariosa var. niewlandii Restricted to newer glacial moraines Associated with oak savannas Listed IL Threatened in 1987 Few languishing populations Daniel Suarez Bowles, Wilhelm, Packard (1988)

29 Savanna Blazing Star Liatris scariosa var. niewlandii Restoration and management have improved habitat POC monitors: 26 subpopulations 10 sites Populations clustered Why? Carol Freeman

30 Why are populations concentrated in S.W. Cook County? Land use of morainal till Red = high level of development

31 Management data Management information could improve understanding of population trends Need complete data

32 Restoration Maps as a tool Could improve spatial analysis of land management at the species level Data not available across multiple sites Limits functionality

33 What else can we learn about the region from POC spatial data?

34 Invasive species Invasive species are noted on every POC monitoring form GPS for monitored population give spatial reference

35 Invasive GPS Data

36 Invasive GPS data

37 Lake Michigan Early Detection Strike Team Using POC spatial data on invasive species Target invasives for removal Improve coastal habitat Partnership led by Lake Co. FPD

38 What s next? Improve suitability modeling Management information and analysis Partner with researchers!

39 Acknowledgements POC Volunteers! Dan Larkin Emily Yates Sarah Whidden Wade Van Nortwick Bianca Rosenbaum Chicago Wilderness & CMAP Susanne Masi Field Team 2014