invasive plant mapping and databases...when i gave a talk the other day to about 50 dnr property...

Prevention Strategies:Invasive Plant Mapping and Databases

The National Institute of Invasive Species Science

Alycia Crall, Research AssistantNelson Institute of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Tom Stohlgren, Catherine Jarnevich, Tracy Davern, Geneva Chong (USGS), Jim Graham, Greg Newman, Paul Evangelista, Sara Simonson, David Barnett, Sunil Kumar, Rick Shory, Mohammed Kalkhan (CSU/NREL)

THE PROBLEM


Presenter�

Presentation Notes�

When I gave a talk the other day to about 50 DNR property managers I asked how many had some kind of map or database of their invasives - about 5 raised their hands. When I asked who kept track of control efforts - Wade and one tech raised their hands. When I asked about follow-up monitoring after controls - those 2 plus 1 other raised hands. - and this is a group of people who are taking care of public lands and are actually supposed to be recording all chemical use! It might be useful for you to ask a similar question at the start.�

Non-native species are continuously being introduced

Need for early detection and rapid response

Issues of data synergyLarge data gaps (spatial and temporal)

Crall et al. 2006 (Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment)Improve area species lists

Crosier and Stohlgren 2004 (Weed Technology)Provide watch lists to lands adjacent to currently invaded areasCapitalize on limited resourcesImprove species distribution maps

In General……..

Presenter�


As new species continue to be introduced to the United States, there is a growing need for early detection and rapid response to new invaders. However, there have been few efforts to improve collaboration and data synergy among research groups which has hindered our ability to provide an efficient early detection and rapid response program. The extent of existing non-native species data is not well known and there have been few efforts to improve collaboration and data synergy among groups. Data synergy could help improve area species lists, improve spatially predictive models, provide watch lists to lands adjacent to currently invaded areas, and capitalize on limited resources. This has led to large data gaps within our state of knowledge. Catherine and Tom published a paper in 2004 to illustrate how the synergy of disparate data sets can increase knowledge of species distributions while minimizing costs of conducting additional field work. On average, they found a 44% increase in species recorded per county in Colorado with all data types included. In addition, results of another study published in 2006 demonstrate the importance of looking for offline data sources to comprehensively determine what data are in existence. �

Issues Exposed at Invasive Species Workshop, January 2008

Data CollectionInvasive species data collected my multiple groupsNo standard protocols being used across region

CollaborationEfforts uncoordinated throughout the region

Data ManagementMany states do not have state-wide system

The Problem in the Midwest

Presenter�


Workshop funded by North Central Integrated Pest Management I called a colleague of mine at Colorado State University and asked her to compile a map of the US with regional invasive species databases. �

INVADERS database

Cal-flora

SE-EPPC EDDMaps

IPANE

MidSouthSWEMP

TexasINVASIVES

The Problem in the Midwest

New Invaders Watch Program

Southern Illinois Database of Exotic Plants

Invasive Species Initiative

GLIFWC

Herbaria

Currently exist in isolation from one anotherLack the ability to combine data from other regions and neighboring statesDo not have capacity to support additional data contributors

Presenter�


The IL New Invaders Watch Program is only concerned with 22 new terrestrial and aquatic plant invaders and can only support Illinois state users. Southern IL data exist in an Excel spreadsheet are a compilation of herbarium records and recent survey projects for 11 counties in southern IL. Michigan State University has begun development of an online, state-wide database system that will host state-wide reporting data and also serve as an educational website. GLIFWC provides regional distribution data for invasive species in the Upper Great Lakes region. This system does not have the capacity to serve additional users outside its region. The herbaria database covers the entire state, but the database requires voucher specimens and these are not always available or collected. �

Aggregated data to assess statewide and regional priorities User-friendly mapping tools and trainingRapid, coarse scale mappingMulti-jurisdictional funding mechanisms to implement early detection, rapid response, and prioritized controlStrong collaborations across agency and organizational boundaries

Additional Needs

Solving the Problem

in Wisconsin


Presenter�


So, this brings us to why I’m here today. I’m going to review with all of you the work currently being done to address this problem in the state. I’m more familiar with some programs than others, but I’ve tried to provide contact information if you would like to learn more about any existing programs.�

RegionalMidwest Invasive Plant Network (www.mipn.org)

StatewideInvasive Plants Association of Wisconsin (www.ipaw.org)Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife CommissionThe National Institute of Invasive Species Science (www.niiss.org)

Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesRivers Alliance of Wisconsin

Collaboration

Presenter�


In addition to this program, there has been both regional and statewide collaboration to address all the issues I mentioned at the beginning. The Midwest Invasive Plant Network (MIPN) has agreed to place materials from the workshop on their website (www.mipn.org). In addition, MIPN has began collaborative efforts with the Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin (IPAW), Michigan State University, the Nature Conservancy, the National Institute of Invasive Species Science, and the Global Invasive Species Information Network to develop a decision support tree for land managers and regional groups in need of an invasive species data management system. This decision tree will provide resources to multiple groups when looking at the pros and cons of existing systems. MIPN has shown strong interest in becoming the primarily facilitator of regional collaboration on these data management issues. �

Glacial Habitat Restoration AreaUsing Trimble Juno PDA unitsUsing Access form for data entry

Similar to MN DNR system

Control and accomplishment tracking Available in 1-2 months

Information collected sent to a statewide network to allow users to manipulate for statewide analyses

More Information? [email protected]

Database Collection Pilot Program

Presenter�


To begin, I want to mention a pilot program being conducted at the Glacial Habitat Restoration Area in Columbia, Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Winnebago counties. This program was initiated to facilitate data collection on invasive species in the field using PDA. I wanted to mention this program first because Wade will be leaving the meeting shortly to take a polar plunge, and I wanted him to be here in case anyone has any questions about this specific program. Example of statewide analyses: biological control programs looking at statewide abundance of a certain weed to make better decisions on where to put future insectaries Rapid dissemination of data!!�

www.glifwc-maps.org

Presenter�


�

• Over 38,500 records– Over 20,000 Terrestrial Invasive– Over 15,000 Aquatic Invasive – 2,300 Control Records

• Over 300 different taxa– 33,800 plant records– 5,000 animal or other records

• Survey Routes & Lakes

Presenter�


Invasive species location, conducting control, inventory on boat landing signage or documenting survey routes allows you to click a button at the location and automatically captures GPS coordinates and allows you to enter directly into you PDA any atribute information – number of plants, acres treated, signs present etc. �

Data Contributors

• Over 30 contributors including:– GLIFWC (8317)– WI Dept of Natural Resources (6610)– MN Dept of Natural Resources (5159)– Dept of Agriculture (3941)– NPS, Great Lakes EPMT (3,838)– U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey,

Tribal NR Depts, County Conservation Depts, TNC, local citizens, CWMAs, etc.

Presenter�


Integrates GIS & GPS functions Full GIS running in background w/GPS location overlain Navigate to > follow up control work or monitoring�

New Platform with Free Open Source Software

• Online data entry• Save & load custom sessions• Connectivity to other databases via GISIN• Uses “live data” – quicker updates• Ability to download data• Support for WMS & WFS• More background layers

Questions???

• Miles Falck– [email protected]– 715-682-6619 x124

• Dara Olson– [email protected]– 715-682-6619 x129

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.niiss.org

Presenter�


Some groups that currently don’t have a database are making use of it for their purposes.�

User and Project Options

Manage Your Project

Field MethodsDescriptionEquipment neededHow to setupReferences

Field ToolsProject Envelope

use with ArcMapsurvey full environmental range of species

EcoNabfield data collection program that runs on your ''Palm Pilot'' PDA

Gather Data

Field ToolsThe Past

The Future

+ Manual entry

+ Automatic upload

By Organizationuniversity, non-profit, etc.

By Locationpolitically defined locales such as states, counties, national parks, wildlife refuges

By Speciesscientific name, common name, NRCS code

By Projectdata contributed by project members and managed by project managers

By Map

Browse Data

Survey Datatab-delimited text file or shapefilessingle species or many speciesmultiple locations or single/multiple political boundariescaptures organism location, date, attributes, auxiliary data, treatment data

New Sightingsenter single point sighting

Data Standardsset of standards users can use to upload disparate data in a standard format

Contribute Data

Contribute Data: Survey Data

Spreadsheetsmanage and create spreadsheets of data from the databasecolumns include project name, visit date, scientific name, common name, present, percent cover, height, location data, raster layerscan filter by species, area, start and end date, project

GeorastersUpload georastersDownload georasters, including ones generated from statistical analyses

StatisticsDescriptive (max, min, mean, SD, histogram)Simple linear regressionMultiple linear regressionRegression treeSimple logistic regressionMultiple logistic regression

Analyze Data

allows you to download organism locations as a textfile, csv file, or shapefile

Download Data

Input Field Data Automaticallyadd satellite

data

Geared towards citizen scientist organizations in need of a data management systemProducts

TrainingsUser friendly websiteOnline tutorialsSimple monitoring protocols

NSF Program 2006-2009

http://www.refugenet.org/new-images/gps1.jpg

www.citsci.org

Customize Online Data Entry Forms

Map Data

Online Tutorials

www.niiss.orgTarget audience: land managers, research scientistsMore advanced featuresVersatility adds complexityUse to upload pre-existing datasets

www.citsci.orgTarget audience: volunteer coordinators, citizen scientistsMore user friendlyUse to create customized online data entry formsGreat for starting a local monitoring program!

Differences Between Websites

Level 1: The simplest approach; map presence/absence of species with a GPS

Level 2: A simple plot-based approach; least cost and time required; collect general location and abundance information on a few species of interest

Level 3: An approach for more experienced monitoring groups; incorporates more detailed species abundance and habitat information

Level 4: A far more detailed approach to mapping and modeling native and non-native species distributions, primarily for researchers; expensive and time-consuming

Monitoring Protocols

First Approximation Model

environmental envelope of presence/absence

logical strata, based on suitable habitats, major

environmental gradients, or TM heterogeneity classes

identify information gaps (soils, other data)

Level 1 Level 2 Levels 3 & 4

Subjectively SampleKnown Locations(location, cover, area)

Add Additional SpeciesAnd Auxiliary Variables(height, disturbance, cover of

abiotic variables)

Add More Stratified-Random Samples

Opportunistic Samplesof Unknown Locations

note presence/absence, cover, area

Add Stratified-RandomSampling Componentto assess mean conditions

within envelope

Add More Gradient Samples

and/or

Iterative ModelsValidate all previous data

Continue to refine previous models as new

information becomes available

Second Approximation Model

Validate subjective data and refine Level 1 and 3 monitoring locations

Outputs: (1) Current and potential distribution models; (2) Priority sites for control and restoration; (3) Potential early detection sites; and (4) Probability and uncertainty analyses.

Level of Difficulty

NIISS (Level 1)Who? Recorder’s NameWhat? Species Name When? Collection Date Where? Location

Minimum Mapping StandardsNorth American Weed Management Associationwww.nawma.org

Minimum Data Requirements

Levels 2 - 4: Barnett et al. 2007“The Art and Science of Weed Mapping”

1-m2

Quadrat

30°

150°

270°24ft (7.32m)

Area = 168m2

Presenter�


Being adopted by NIISS and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)�

ComponentsIntroduction to InvasivesGPSMonitoring ProtocolsPDAWebsite

Available Trainings

What’s Next?


GLIFWCHerbariaWill merge existing data for you

Any format acceptableSpreadsheetsShapefilesPaper forms

Only need metadata associated with data

Data Merger for State

Merged data accessed online in real-time

Retrieval from existing datasets

Early Warning SystemSelect area and/or species of interestUtility dependent on large data pool

Additional Features in Development

Data delivery directly from the field

Online data entry forms

Email alerts of new sightings sent to local land managers

http://www.natureserve.org/

GISIN Data Exchange Protocol (TDWG, GBIF)Pull data from member sitesShare data with member sitesData Contributors

GISIN >100 databases; NISbase; NAS; SWEMP; IPANE; VegBank; CAINSAIN, The Cactus Moth Detection and Monitoring Network (CMDMN), FWS, Tamarisk Coalition, Colorado State Forest Service, Grand Canyon Trust, ND Dept of Ag, SD Dept of Ag, Invasive Tracers, 4H Community Mapping Program, NatureServe

GISIN

Technology Libraries

University of Wisconsin-Madison ArboretumMay 30-31 (Rain dates June 13-14)Day 1: Training

Scientific MethodInvasive SpeciesGPS UsePlant IdentificationVegetation Monitoring Protocols

Day 2: MonitoringFour Monitoring StationsData Collected Compared to Professionals

Citizen Science Training and Monitoring

Data Merged for the StateUp-to-date distribution mapsData gaps made apparentTarget monitoring programs

Statewide Monitoring ProgramTested monitoring protocolsMonitoring equipment available to anyoneTrainings online

Easy Data ManagementData available in real timeEarly detection and rapid response easy and effective

The Final Product…..

Combine pre-existing data across areas to be

surveyed.

Assess Model Improvements

Procedures

Contribute existing data to a public database.

Add essential modeling layers. Develop data

quality checks.

Contribute existing data to a public database.

Role ofScientists

Role ofCitizenScientists

Outputs

Initial Phase Second Phase Iterative PhasePreparation

Phase

Develop simple habitat suitability models for

invasive species. Identify data gaps.

Add known locations (subjective sampling). Collect data at easily accessible locations

(opportunistic sampling).

Add stratified-random and gradient sampling

components to fully assess conditions suitable for each

species.

Add further sampling tailored to particular

species based on available data and model uncertainty.

Refine distribution models for species. Determine potential early detection sites.

Prioritize sites for control and restoration.

Refine models of species distributions.

Model likely future spread to prioritize

management decision.

Determine potential to contain and/or eradicate

each species.

List priority areas for citizen scientists to

sample. Validate preliminary

models.

Refine models using data additions. Guide citizen

scientists on which data are important to

collect for each species.

Prioritize data for collection by

monitoring groups. Develop specific

protocols as needed.

Collect plentiful presence/absence

data on species occurrences.

Collect plentiful presence/absence

data, including important attribute

data.

Continue working closely with local stakeholders to

ensure needs are being addressed.

For more information contact:Alycia CrallNational Institute of Invasive Species [email protected]

Kelly Kearns (WI DNR), Wade Oehmichen (WI DNR), Miles Falck (GLIFWC)

Our Volunteers, Citizen Science Program Coordinators, The National Science Foundation, Greg Newman, Jim Graham, Catherine Jarnevich,

Tom Stohlgren, Don Waller, and Mohammed Kalkhan

Many thanks to:

invasive plant mapping and databases...when i gave a talk the other day to about 50 dnr property...

Documents