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
Plants of Concern Natural areas Tri state Chicago region Addressing Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan
Plants of Concern Trained citizen scientists Standardized data Rare plant populations Partnerships Volunteer groups Federal, state, municipal Private landowners Researchers
POC s spatial data Intensive data management Additional training for volunteers Basics of spatial data Datum, Coordinate System Tested phone applications, units
GPS Training Attendees felt: 76% more knowledgeable about GPS 88% more comfortable with GPS for POC
POC s spatial data Adding data filters Visual check of population location Encoded check of population location Web mapping module in the works
Scope 288 species 1170 populations 15 counties 14 year dataset Answer questions Provide baseline for future studies
Scope Populations cover ~2 contiguous mi2 Ranging across 5900 mi2 Many distributed small populations
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?
Land cover Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision
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%)
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%)
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 http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/ www.soil net.com
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
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
POC locationsavailable Water Capacity Cation Exchange Capacity
Niche identification: gravel hill species
NMDS Ordination Reduce many variables to two axes Visualize similarity/ difference between sites
Gravel hill species (Asclepias lanuginosa, Cirsium hillii) Milkweed is nested in Thistle Same habitat Species are statistically distinct Driven by silt and sand
White Lady s Slipper (Cypripedium candidum) Cluster near CEC, Organic Matter Ideal habitat The species has not done well at this sandy site
Population trends in relation to ordination 80 60 Trend 40 20 Thistle (Cirsium) 0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 20 40 NMDS 1 Lady s slipper (Cypripedium)
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
Gravel Hill Habitat Suitability Modeling Identify suitable habitat for Cirsium hillii Asclepias lanuginosa
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
Habitat Suitability Refinement of criteria Remove flow, impervious surfaces, edge distances Ground truthing Attempts with other species
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)
Savanna Blazing Star Liatris scariosa var. niewlandii Restoration and management have improved habitat POC monitors: 26 subpopulations 10 sites Populations clustered Why? Carol Freeman
Why are populations concentrated in S.W. Cook County? Land use of morainal till Red = high level of development
Management data Management information could improve understanding of population trends Need complete data
Restoration Maps as a tool 2014 2012 2010 2009 Could improve spatial analysis of land management at the species level Data not available across multiple sites Limits functionality
What else can we learn about the region from POC spatial data?
Invasive species Invasive species are noted on every POC monitoring form GPS for monitored population give spatial reference
Invasive GPS Data http://www.eddmaps.org/
Invasive GPS data http://www.eddmaps.org/
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
What s next? Improve suitability modeling Management information and analysis Partner with researchers!
Acknowledgements POC Volunteers! Dan Larkin Emily Yates Sarah Whidden Wade Van Nortwick Bianca Rosenbaum Chicago Wilderness & CMAP Susanne Masi Field Team 2014