Ecolunch fall2011

236 views

Published on

Presentation to Department of Environmental and Forest Biology at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, fall 2011. **Results are preliminary and unpublished**

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
236
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ecolunch fall2011

  1. 1. Constructed vernal pools insouthwestern New York State Jaime Jones 1 December 2011
  2. 2. Outline• Overview- study system, sites, objectives• Methods- sampling scheme, data collected• Summary statistics- abiotic characteristics, total cover• NMS ordination (briefly)• MRPP & Indicator Species Analysis• Modeling cover- correlations, Generalized Linear Model
  3. 3. Vernal pools in the northeast• Small, isolated, “temporary” wetlands (Colburn 2004)• Important for obligate/facultative VP animals & plant species of concern (Comer et al. 2005) – Carex lupuliformis- false hop sedge (S2) – Hottonia inflata- featherfoil (S2) – Scirpus ancistrochaetus- northeastern bulrush (E) • Recently rediscovered in New York state in county adjacent to study sites!• Loss of topographic heterogeneity = loss of pools Natural pool Created pool (circa 1970)
  4. 4. Upper Susquehanna Coalition Network of soil & water conservation districts Constructed 300+ pools in Schuyler, Chemung, and Tompkins counties (2003-2010)
  5. 5. 2007 2007 Photos taken summer 2010 20032008 2006 2006 60 “new” (2003-2008; USC) + 10 “old” (circa 1970; DEC) (all forest)n= 70 “created” pools
  6. 6. Objectives1. Describe, quantify, and compare vascular plant assemblages in created and natural vernal pools2. Investigate the relative influence of selected environmental factors on vascular plant diversity, composition, and cover in created vernal pools3. Describe pool designs and construction methods that facilitate establishment of desired plant species.
  7. 7. Sampling Design Pool selection: • Random (within each of 8 properties) Vegetation sampling: Stratified by region of pool: • Edge • Interior Vegetation data: • Cover by species (%) • Total cover (%)
  8. 8. Predictor variablesAbiotic variables Biotic variables• Pool age (months) • Total basal area• Light: Percent full sun (%) • Tree species richness – Average and range • Terrestrial vegetation• Hydrology – Cover by species (%) – Depth: max, min, residual (%) –Total cover (%) – Area: max, min, residual (%) – Species richness• Water chemistry • Bryophyte cover (%) – Specific conductivity • CWD cover (%) – pH• Slope of pool margins• Soils (n=30 created pools) – Bulk density – Organic matter (%)
  9. 9. Light boxplotn=10 n=17 n=43
  10. 10. Residual pool
  11. 11. Soils (n=30 USC-created pools) ------------ Root-restrictive Db in clay3.3 to 21.95% 0.57 to 1.53 g/cm3
  12. 12. Objective 1:Describe & quantify vascular plant assemblages- Total cover • Hypothesis: Average total cover will range widely among pools, from 0% to nearly 100%. – Forest pools with dense canopy cover will be sparsely vegetated, and open-canopy pools will be densely vegetated.
  13. 13. Total cover boxplot
  14. 14. Mean total cover of natural andcover vernal pools Mean total created Created(old) Created(new)open Created(new)forest Natural Origin
  15. 15. Objective 1 (cont’d):Describe and quantify vascular plant assemblages- Species composition• Hypothesis: Species composition will be dominated by native FACW / OBL species. – Open-canopy pools: Common FACW / OBL graminoids & Typha spp. – Forest pools: Common herbaceous/woody FACW / OBL species• NMS ordination• MRPP- Multi-Response Permutation Procedure• Indicator Species Analysis
  16. 16. Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling (NMS) Ordination• Ordination: Similar objects (pools) are near each other and dissimilar objects (pools) are farther from each other• NMS ordination: • Nonparametric multivariate technique • Indirect gradient analysis
  17. 17. NMS: Created pools in species space Stress= 18.94, instability <0.00001 Juncus tenuis, Scirpus cyperinus, Solidago canadensis, Scirpus atrovirens, Eleocharis ovata, Juncus effusus, Euthamia graminifolia
  18. 18. Multi-Response Permutation Procedure (MRPP)• Ho: No significant difference in species composition between 2+ a priori groups• Nonparametric test• Products: Test statistic, p-value, and measure of effect size (“A”) – A = “Chance-corrected within-group agreement” If Then All items identical within A=1 groups (Δ=0) Heterogeneity within A=0 groups = random Heterogeneity within A<0 groups > random
  19. 19. MRPP Analysis• Rank-transformed, Sorenson distance measure – Old, forest pools – New, forest pools – New, open canopy pools – Natural pools• A= 0.353, p=0.0000000• Pairwise comparisons (A>0.3, p≈0.00000): Pool type 1 Pool type 2 A New, open Old, forest 0.4387 New, open Natural 0.4258 Old, forest Natural 0.3422
  20. 20. Indicator Species Analysis• Identifies species that are indicative of a priori groups• Indicator Value: Percent of perfect indication – Based on relative abundance & relative frequency• “Perfect” indicator species (I.V. = 100) is – Faithful (always present in its group) – Exclusive (never present in other groups)
  21. 21. ISA: Natural, old forest, new forest, & new open pools (top 6 indicator species) Group Species WIS Native IV p Others Osmunda regalis OBL Y 57.1 0.0002 - Carex intumescens FACW+ Y 56.0 0.0002 Natural Quercus rubra FACU- Y 47.8 0.0004 Maianthemum canadense FAC- Y 33.5 0.0074 Agrostis canina FACU Y 50.0 0.0002 Leersia oryzoides, Galium asprellum OBL Y 50.0 0.0002 Cornus Created, old, Lycopus uniflorus OBL Y 41.5 0.0096 amomum forest Populus tremuloides ? Y 39.5 030024 Bidens connata FACW+ Y 35.2 0.014 Amelanchier arborea FAC- Y 34.6 0.0044 Created, Oxalis dillenii ? Y 33.4 0.0502 - new, forest Typha latifolia OBL Y 70.4 0.0002 Euthamia graminifolia, Juncus tenuis FAC- Y 69.1 0.0002 Eleocharis Created, Juncus effusus FACW+ Y 68.1 0.0002 ovata, new, open Potentilla simplex FACU- Y 68.1 0.0002 Scirpus atrovirens, Panicum virgatum FAC Y 64.7 0.0002 Scirpus Carex scoparia FACW Y 64.0 0.0002 cyperinus…
  22. 22. Forest Natural OpenPhotos: plants.usda.gov, florida.plantatlas.usf.edu, & calphotos.berkeley.edu
  23. 23. Objective 2: Environmental influences on- Species composition • Hypothesis: Strongest influences on species composition will be light availability and drawdown (minimum depth/ minimum area/ residual pool) • NMS ordination: Joint plot with environmental factor overlay Future analysis: Logistic models for presence/absence of selected species
  24. 24. NMS: Created pools in species space Stress= 18.94, instability <0.00001 light, terrestrial veg. cover, basal area, tree diversity, pH
  25. 25. Objective 2 cont’d: Environmental influences on- Total cover • Hypothesis: Strongest influences on total vascular plant cover will be Light availability and drawdown • Generalized Linear Model (GLM) of cover – Negative binomial distribution (overdispersed data) – Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
  26. 26. Selecting variables for model fitting• Highly correlated and/or proxy variables – e.g. light availability and total basal area• Used variable most strongly correlated with total cover• Pool age was not included
  27. 27. Model simplification 2 Light pH Cond Mar.Slope Light*pH pH*Cond AIC Pseudo -r 1 x x x 512.75 0.36 2 x x 513.01 0.34 3 x x x x 513.97 0.36 4 x x x 514.79 0.34 5 x x x x x 515.29 0.37 6 x 516.26 0.28• Top candidate models include: – Light – pH of water – Light*pH interaction• No pool size or drawdown variables
  28. 28. Simple Generalized Linear Models of cover AIC=516.26 AIC=527.32
  29. 29. GLM of cover: Including soil data• No correlation of Db or %OM with total cover• No effect on model fit• Range of values too narrow?
  30. 30. Future Analyses• Regression models (potentially mixed models; random effect = property): – Species richness – Species diversity – Proportion of non-natives – Presence/absence of species of interest (e.g. Typha spp., Carex lupuliformis, etc.)• ANOVA to compare various characteristics among different types of pools
  31. 31. Comparing diversity and richness: – Much larger total area sampled for created pools than for natural pools – Need to account for this difference. Thoughts? Grouping Pool Type n Area (m2) All Natural Natural 7 1695 All Created Created, all 70 4092 Created, by Created, open 43 1660 canopy Created, forest 27 2432 Created, by Created, new, open 43 1660 canopy & Created, new, forest 17 1067 age Created, old, forest 10 1365
  32. 32. Seed bank study• Composite soil samples, n=15 created pools• Seedling emergence method (van der Valk and Davis 1978, Smith and Kadlec 1983, Haukos and Smith 1993)• Transplants- playing the waiting game (and when it’s time to quit playing) Gratiola neglecta Carex spp., Gnaphalium uliginosum, Solidago sp., various dicotyledons
  33. 33. Acknowledgements• Don Leopold- major professor• James Gibbs, John Stella- committee members• Upper Susquehanna Coalition• Edna Bailey Sussman Foundation- funding• Wetland Foundation- funding• Property owners• Jessica Logan- 2010 field assistant• Ecolunch & 401 Illick folks Larval salamander Utricularia sp. Caddisfly larva

×