lessons for riparian restoration and monitoring joshua h

Information Center for the EnvironmentUniversity of California, Davis 90th ESA Annual Meeting ∞ Montréal

Information Center for the Environment, University of California, Davis http://ice.ucdavis.edu/

California Information Node, National Biological Information Infrastructurehttp://cain.nbii.org/

John Muir Institute of the Environment http://johnmuir.ucdavis.edu/

Conservation International http://www.conservation.org/

Placer Land Trust http://www.placerlandtrust.org/

Patterns of regional and local diversity in the California Bay-Delta ecoregion and its watersheds:

Joshua H. Viers, James H. Thorne,Mehrey Vaghti, & James F. Quinn

Lessons for riparian restoration and monitoringLessons for riparian restoration and monitoring

Regional Ecosystem Management Efforts

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project

Northwest Forest Plan


California Bay-Delta

25 state and federal agencies working cooperatively to improve the quality and reliability of California’s water supplies while restoring the Bay-Delta ecosystem (http://calwater.ca.gov/CBDA/)

Cosumnes River


Regional Riparian DiversityRegional Riparian Diversity

– Used CalJep, a spatial database reconciliation of the two prominent electronic floras for California into Ecological Sub Units (n=224)Viers, Thorne, & Quinn San Francisco Estuary & Watershed Science (in press)

– Calflora (Dennis) & Jepson (Hickman)

– Cross Walked Vascular Plant Taxa (n=7963)• Identified Riparian Taxa via California Rivers Assessment Database

– (J. Hunter, Jones & Stokes) (n=1210 riparian taxa)

– Selected 25 units within Bay-Delta / Central Valley

– Looked at Jaccard Similarity of Riparian species across ESUs and by lifeform (i.e., woody & herbaceous)

S

N

CalJep Riparian TaxaJaccard Similarities

N

S

0.74

0.85

0.85

0.70

0.79

0.77

0.74

0.66

0.67

0.500.510.4836.2

0.470.480.4636.4

0.520.520.5236.5

0.440.450.4236.9

0.520.540.5437.0

0.580.570.5537.3

0.430.470.4637.3

0.490.490.4637.3

0.500.500.4637.5

0.500.500.4637.7

0.590.600.5637.8

0.510.520.4737.8

0.590.580.5438.0

0.730.710.6638.3

0.710.720.6738.5

0.460.480.4538.5

0.810.770.7138.7

0.740.740.6938.7

0.630.660.6538.9

0.680.710.6939.1

1.000.890.8039.2

0.660.700.6739.5

0.891.000.8739.6

0.660.710.7640.0

0.800.871.0040.0

-122.10-122.16-122.27Y° X°

Jaccard Similarity Coefficients

Longitudinal Profilesfor selected ESUs

SS

NN

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

40.0

39.6

39.2

38.9

38.7

38.5

38.0

37.8

37.5

37.3

37.0

36.5

36.2

-122.27-122.16-122.10


California Bay-Delta Hydromodification

• Levees • Channelization• Dams • Water diversion

Changes in Floodwater• Magnitude• Timing• Duration• Frequency• Connectivity


1

109

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

20

Log

Freq

uenc

y (n

= 5

4)

109

8

7

6

5

4

3

10090

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Log

Cum

ulat

ive

Per

cent

Pla

ntin

gs

Que

rcus

loba

taA

cer n

egun

do v

ar. c

alifo

rnic

umP

lata

nus

race

mos

aP

opul

us fr

emon

tii s

sp. f

rem

ontii

Sal

ix s

p.Fr

axin

us la

tifol

iaS

ambu

cus

mex

ican

aA

lnus

rhom

bifo

liaS

alix

laev

igat

aS

alix

goo

ddin

gii

Que

rcus

wis

lizen

iiS

alix

luci

da s

sp. l

asia

ndra

Aesc

ulus

cal

iforn

ica

Ros

a ca

lifor

nica

Bac

char

is p

ilula

risJu

glan

s ca

lifor

nica

var

. hin

dsii

Pop

ulus

frem

ontii

Vitis

cal

iforn

ica

Nas

sella

pul

chra

Ely

mus

gla

ucus

Het

erom

eles

arb

utifo

liaS

alix

lasi

olep

isC

erci

s oc

cide

ntal

isM

uhle

nber

gia

rigen

sC

epha

lant

hus

occi

dent

alis

var

. cal

iforn

icus

Rha

mnu

s ca

lifor

nica

Rub

us u

rsin

usS

ambu

cus

sp.

Bac

char

is s

alic

ifolia

Cep

hala

nthu

s oc

cide

ntal

isP

inus

sab

inia

naQ

uerc

us c

hrys

olep

isQ

uerc

us d

ougl

asii

Sal

ix h

inds

iana

Bro

mus

car

inat

usC

arex

bar

bara

eC

eano

thus

sp.

Cor

nus

nutta

llii

Ele

ocha

ris m

acro

stac

hya

Erio

gonu

m fa

scic

ulat

umEs

chsc

holz

ia c

alifo

rnic

aLe

ymus

triti

coid

esM

elic

a ca

lifor

nica

Sal

ix s

essi

lifol

iaTy

pha

latif

olia

Ace

r mac

roph

yllu

mA

lnus

sp.

Car

ex p

raeg

raci

lisC

eano

thus

thyr

siflo

rus

Des

cham

psia

ces

pito

saE

lym

us tr

achy

caul

usE

lym

us tr

itico

ides

Hib

iscu

s la

sioc

arpu

sJu

ncus

bal

ticus

Junc

us x

iphi

oide

sLo

lium

mul

tiflo

rum

Lupi

nus

sp.

Um

bellu

laria

cal

iforn

ica

Alo

pecu

rus

sacc

atus

Apo

cynu

m s

ibiri

cum

var

. sal

ignu

m

Active Restoration Taxa (n = 154)

Natural Resource Projects Inventory: Restoration Site × Taxa

Quercus lobata most frequent single taxonSalix most frequent generic choice


Local Riparian DiversityLocal Riparian Diversity• Sacramento (Conard et al. 1980; Vaghti 2003 ‡)

– spp = 141 >> riparian spp = 47• Putah Creek (Sutter 1986)

– spp = 66 >> riparian spp = 28• Cosumnes River (Tu 2000 §)

– spp = 90 >> riparian spp = 40• Stanislaus River (Quinn 1993)

– spp = 215 >> riparian spp = 86• Tuolumne River (Bair 2000)

– spp = 86 >> riparian spp = 43• San Joaquin (Moise & Henderson 2002)

– spp = 202 >> riparian spp = 84

across sites

S

N

CalJep Riparian Taxa

Jaccard SimilaritiesN

SSan Joaquin

0.220.78

0.33Tuolumne0.87

0.410.78

0.14Stanislaus0.58

0.380.63

0.15Cosumnes0.60

0.230.57

0.35Putah0.65

0.130.63

Sacramento

Native Herbaceous

Native Woody


‡ M.G. Vaghti (2003) Riparian Vegetation Classification in Relation to Environmental Gradients, SacramentoRiver, California. M. Sci. Thesis (UC Davis)

<< North

Sacramento River

91 Plots

darker plots occur on point bars


Vaghti & Greco Riparian Vegetation of the Great Valley (in press)

Charismatic Megaflora(Quercus lobata)

Charismatic Megaflora(Quercus lobata)


Floodplain Ecology & Biodiversity Ward and Tockner Freshwater Biology (2001; 46:807-819)

• Functional Diversity• Structural Diversity• Species Diversity

Floodplain Ecology & Biodiversity

restoration should focus on re-establishing diverse river functions, including processes of ecological succession and hydrologic connectivity between surface and subsurface waters


Species DiversitySpecies Diversity


Structural DiversityStructural Diversity


Florsheim and Mount Geomorphology (2002; 44: 67–94)

Functional DiversityFunctional Diversity


D.S. Ahearn, J.H. Viers, & J.F. Mount (Hydrobiologia submitted) Priming the productivity pump: Temporal trends in suspended algal biomass distribution across a restored floodplain

Influx of organic and inorganic materials (nutrients, sediments... ?)


1.000.630.450.10VO (7)Native Woody

1.000.670.11MR (6)Native Woody

1.000.18AF (9)Native Woody

1.00SS (4)Native Woody

1.000.690.440.25VO (13)Native Herb

1.000.570.30MR (9)Native Herb

1.000.36AF (13)Native Herb

1.00SS (17)Native Herb

1.000.670.450.21VO (20)All Native

1.000.610.24MR (15)All Native

1.000.30AF (22)All Native

1.00SS (21)All Native

1.000.560.390.19VO (30)All Spp

1.000.490.18MR (23)All Spp

1.000.28AF (38)All Spp

1.00SS (50)All Spp

VOMRAFSSSITE (spp)Taxa

successional gradient

Cosumnes River Riparian Jaccard Similarities (§ Tu, 2000)


Valley Oak PlantationEstablished in 1989


take home lessons for restoration & monitoringtake home lessons for restoration & monitoring• Present focus on

charismatic megaflora –(i.e., preferential restoration) has resulted in under representation of certain taxa

• California sycamore & Oregon ash are two woody taxa deserving more attention; vines & herbs are almost entirely ignored

• TNC Restoration Model (e.g., Sacramento River) is complementary in its taxa selection (Ryan Luster pers. comm.)

• Hydrological connectivity and ecological processes (e.g., succession) are critical to long term restoration success >> spatial & temporal monitoring frameworks are necessary

• There is a need to catalog representative benchmarks within functioning riparian habitats & adjust our expectations accordingly

• Ecosystem management, within the framework of Adaptive Management, must account for efforts outside of direct focus

AcknowledgmentsICE Interns:

Rachel Hutchinson, Jorgina Cuixart, Joel Bonilla, Betsy Harbert, Lisa Kashiwase

ICE:Ingrid Hogle, Paul Fulton, Allan Hollander

The Nature Conservancy: Mandy Tu, Becky Waegell, Jamie Marty, Jennifer Buck, Ryan Luster

John Muir Institute of the Environment:Ellen Mantalica, Diana Cummings, Carson Jeffres, John Kochendorfer

California Bay Delta Authority:Ecological Restoration Program (Award # ERP-01-NO1)

Information Center for the Environment

Cosumnes Research Group

hemispherical image of cottonwood (Populus fremontii) canopy in the “accidental” forest

lessons for riparian restoration and monitoring joshua h

Documents