woodland vegetation patterns at the litzsinger road ... · woodland monitoring regions north woods...
TRANSCRIPT
Woodland Vegetation Patterns at the Litzsinger Road Ecology Center
By Abigail Carroll
Objectives
To analyze woodland monitoring data that has been collected over the past 5 years
Look at how vegetation patterns in the woodlands have changed
To better understand the results of LREC staff restoration work
Methods and Materials:
Years: 2004, 2006, 20092x per summer (May, July)15 meter square grid system .25m sq. plots Identify plant species and
assign cover class from 1-5
Woodland Monitoring
Woodland Monitoring RegionsNorth Woods12 plots in the north end of the woodlandsInitially one of the higher quality areas Sprayed with herbicide every fall since 2005Burned twice, once in 2004 and once in 2007
“Unmanaged” Woods11 plots located in the middle of the
woodlandsHave not been sprayed or burned
South Woods25 plots at the southern end
of the woodlands.Sprayed with herbicide in
2006, 2007, 2008
*Comparison between the native and invasive populations
Missouri Exotic Pest Plant (MOEPP) list provided on the MOBOT website
6750 Tyson Valley Road
Methods and Materials:Data Analysis
General Overview of the WoodlandsFocusing on invasive species population vs. native species
Comparison between the Three RegionsTotal Cover (Invasive v. Native)Average Cover (Invasive v. Native)EuonymusSpecies Richness (Invasive v. Native)Coefficient of Conservatism
The WoodlandsTotal Species: increased from 37 → 80(*possibly affected by the staff's increased ability to identify plants)
% Coverage Invasive Species: decreased from 61% →
28.5%
Avg. Cover of Invasive Species: decreased from 3.37 → 2.61
Avg. Cover of Non-Invasive Species: increased from 1.76 → 2.13
Avg. Coefficient of Conservatism: decreased from 3.83 → 3.29(*possibly affected by misidentification of Lesser Celandine)
Total Cover
*Total cover is not defined by specific units. Rather, it is the product of the average cover and the total number of plots.
2004 2006 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Total Cover of Invasive Species
North Woods“Unman-aged” WoodsSouth Woods
Year
Tota
l Cov
er
2004 2006 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Total Cover of Non-Invasive Species
North Woods“Un-man-aged” South Woods
Year
Tota
l Cov
er
Average Cover
2004 2006 20090
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Invasive Species
North Woods“Unmanaged” WoodsSouth Woods
Year
Ave
rage
Cov
er
2004 2006 20090
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Non-Invasive Species
North Woods“Un-man-aged” South Woods
Year
Ave
rage
Cov
er
*The average cover class assigned to invasive and non-invasive species
Average Cover of Euonymus
*Since euonymus fortuneii has such a dominant presence in the LREC woodlands and is the focus of much restoration work, I decided to look more closely at this plant species in particular
2004 2006 2009
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average Cover of Euonymus
North Woods
“Unmanaged”
Woods
South Woods
Year
Aver
age
Cov
er
2004 2006 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of Plots with Euonymus Present
North W oods
“Unm anaged”
W oods
South W oods
Year
Num
ber o
f Plo
ts
Species Richness
*Species Richness indicates the total number of species found in the area.
2004 2006 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Total Cover of Invasive Species
North Woods“Un-man-aged” South Woods
Year
Tota
l Cov
er
2004 2006 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Total Cover of Non-Invasive Species
North Woods“Un-man-aged” South Woods
Year
Tota
l Cov
er
Coefficient of Conservatism
*Coefficient of Conservatism is a ranking system (0-10) used to describe the conservative value of a plant.
2004 2006 2009
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average Coefficient of Conservatism
North Woods
“Unmanaged”
Woods
South Woods
Year
Avg
. C
C
2004 2006 2009
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Average Coefficient of Conservatism
(Adjusted for the Misidentification of Marsh Marigold)
North Woods
“Unmanaged”
Woods
South Woods
Year
Avg.
CC
Conclusions
In general, positive trends in the woodlands
Decreasing invasive speciesIncreasing native speciesIncreasing species richness
North and South Woods much more favorable trends than the “Unmanaged” Woods, showing that restoration work is producing positive resultsCoefficient of Conservatism:
Low and decreasing! (why?)Misidentification of Lesser CelandineLower CC's of introduced speciesFrequent flooding