FQA 101: Using the Floristic Quality Assessment for ... · PDF fileAdam Thada 2016 Stewardship...

Adam Thada 2016 Stewardship Network Conference 16 Jan 2016

FQA 101:

Using the Floristic

Quality Assessment for

restoration monitoring

Adam Thada, Cardno, Inc.

2016 Stewardship Network Conference 16 Jan 2016

How do we measure success?


How do we measure success?

VIBI PIBI

# spp.

presence/absence of

invasives

client likes it

gov’t likes it

donors like it

plant survival

new fauna

hunting opportunities minimum acreage of wetland

mitigated

ecological function

restored

BPJ

number of functional

plant groups

% veg

cover

community involvement

canopy cover

ORAM


How do measure success?

*How do we read the history of landscape? > present throughout most of the year

> immobile

> collectable

> symptomatic of hydrologic / chemical / soil conditions

Listen to the plants!


Coefficient of Conservatism


Coefficient of Conservatism (C-value)

“… plants display varying degrees of tolerance

to disturbance, as well as varying degrees of

fidelity to specific habitat integrity…”

“..The floristic quality of an area is reflected in its

inhabitancy by conservative plant species.”

“Our native systems are defined substantially by

their conservative biota.”

-Floyd Swink and Gerald Wilhelm, 1994


“C-values” Typically assigned by a panel of regional experts.

0-3 Species that provide little or no confidence that its

inhabitance signifies remnant conditions.

4-6 Species that are typically associated with remnant plant

community, but tolerate significant to moderate

disturbance.

7-8 Species found in high-quality remnant plant communities

but appear to endure, from time to time, some

disturbance.

9-10 Species restricted to remnant landscapes that appear to

have suffered very little post-settlement trauma.

(Floristic Quality Assessment in Indiana, Rothrock, 2004)


Michigan C-values (Reznicek, Voss, & Walters, 2011)

Verbena hastata (blue vervain) C = 4

Marshes, ditches, wet shores and stream banks;

thickets and openings in swamps.

Hypericum kalmianum (Kalm’s St. John’s-wort)

C = 10

Largely restricted to the Great Lakes region, and often

very well developed along Lakes Michigan and Huron

in sand dunes, especially calcareous interdunal

hollows, and in moist limestone areas, but also inland

on calcareous (even marly) shores, meadows, and

river banks; occasionally in fens.

Bring me a plant!

V. hastata photo by B.S. Walters, H. kalmianum by J. Kelly www.michiganflora.net


Completed state floras with C-values


Coefficient of Conservatism

… IS:

Repeatable / Standardized

Tested

Widely-applicable

Region-dependent (maybe!)

… IS NOT:

Rarity > Perfect

Comprehensive

Everyone’s definition of success


C-values Mean C

“Mean C”: the average C-value of all plants found

within a given area

Independent of total number of species (could

be an average of 10 plants or 100)


C-values Mean C Floristic Quality

Index (FQI)


10 10 10 10 10

9 9 9 9 9

8 8 8 8 8

7 7 7 7 7

6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0

INTACT: Mean C = 5

FQI = 37


10 10 9 9 9 * 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 * 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 * 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

SOME IMPACT: mean C = 4.2

FQI = 28.5


* * 8 * 7 7 6 6 6 * 5 5 * 5 * 4 * 4 4 4 3 3 * 3 3 2 2 2 * 2 1 * 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

DEGRADED: mean C = 3.3

FQI = 18.1


C-values Mean C Floristic Quality Index (FQI)

FQI is more descriptive, but most valuable (accurate) when

sampling area / effort is controlled for.

Mean C is less affected by methodological variations,

quicker to measure, but somewhat less descriptive. With

100 species counted, probably within 0.1 unit of “true”

Mean C. A rough number is obtained even with a few

dozens plants, as both high and low C-value plants are

encountered. (McIndoe et al. 2008).

Graph from Spyreas and Beas, in prep, presented at Wild Things 2015


C-values Mean C Floristic Quality Index (FQI)

What’s a “good” number?

“Generally, if the Mean C value for the site is 3.5 or

higher or has an I value of 35 or more, one can be fairly

confident that the site has sufficient floristic quality to be

at least of marginal natural area quality. If the Mean C

value is 4.5 or higher, or has an I value of 45 or more,

then it is almost certain that the remnant has natural

area potential.” (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994)

Values vary across regions (e.g. values in Indiana

database significantly higher than Chicago Region

database)


The FQA is affected by:

Seasonality (MN Pollution Control Agency, 2012)

Investigator experience/skill

Effort (time) (MN Pollution Control Agency, 2012)

Site size

State database

Vegetative community (MN Pollution Control Agency, 2007)


Implementation

1) Whole Site Inventory

Considerations:

*sampling effort

*project boundaries

*small populations


Implementation

1) Whole Site Inventory:

71 spp., 3.3 Mean C, 27.7 FQI

2) Transect-level FQA

Fixed transects can reduce

area and sampling intensity

effects (McIndowe 2008)


Implementation

1) Whole Site Inventory:

71 spp., 3.3 Mean C, 27.7 FQI

2) Transect-level FQA 39 spp., 3.2 Mean C, 20.0 FQI

3) Quadrat-level FQA > Accounts for frequency of high C-value

plants

1.3 3.2


Pitfalls / Challenges

Need quadrat-level data to understand abundance and distribution

(more time-consuming)

Consistency of data across time (accounting for skill, effort, etc)

Taxonomic confusion (lump/split, native/non-native)

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and ecological quality

indicators." – Mark Twain, paraphrased

Applicability to anthropogenic systems (e.g. restoration agriculture)

Applicability to highly disturbance-dependent systems (e.g. tallgrass

prairie, http://prairieecologist.com/2011/07/06/are-botanists-ruining-prairies/)

Correlation with “conservative” fauna

http://prairieecologist.com/2011/07/06/are-botanists-ruining-prairies/










Further development/adaptions of the FQA

“Rapid FQA” in Minnesota

(https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-

bwm2-02a.pdf)

Includes a timed component to insure both

efficiency and completeness

Limits species pools with a “rapid species list” for

those both common and easily identified with a

moderate amount of training

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-bwm2-02a.pdf







Are we measuring success?


Real world restoration FQA

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Site-wide Native Mean C

MCWM Auburn SGT ATC IDNL US23 Skokie MEAN

3.3 3.5 3.7



3.0 3.2 3.5 2

3

4

5


Transect Native Mean C




33 35 37 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Site-wide Native FQI




24 26 28 10

20

30

40

50

60


Transect Native FQI




Mesic sand prairie,

first June after grading

FQI Goal ≥ 20.0

Actual = 21.7

Mean C ≥ 3.5

Actual = 4.7

Plant cover goal ≥ 60%

Actual = 3%

Includes a state-listed species.

Results are 100% seed bank



~0.5 ac, 5 Carex sp., 40 native spp.

Mean C goal ≥ 3.5. Actual = 3.3. Year 3.


Resources Michigan DNR FQA page http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12142---,00.html

Michigan Flora Online http://michiganflora.net/

Universal FQA Online Calculator http://universalfqa.org/

An Evaluation of Indiana’s FQA (Rothrock and Homoya, 2005, Indiana Academy of Science)

https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ias/article/viewFile/8561/8552

FQA for Minnesota Wetlands (MN Pollution Control Agency, 2007)

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-bwm2-01.pdf

Minnesota Rapid FQA development https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-bwm2-02a.pdf

A Users Guide to FQA (Spyreas, Illinois Natural History Survey, unpublished, 2015)

http://habitatproject.org/WildThings2015/Resources/2F/Greg%20Spyreas%20-

%20Guide%20to%20Floristic%20Quality.pdf>

Moving Towards a National FQA (Medley and Scozzafava, 2009, Nat’l Wetlands Newsletter)

http://elr.info/sites/default/files/medley.pdf

Monitoring Tallgrass Prairie Restoration Performance Using FQA (McIndoe et al., 2008, Indiana

Academy of Science)

Testing the FQA Index as an Indicator of Wetland Condition (Lopez and Fennessy, 2002, Ecological

Applications)

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12142---,00.html








http://michiganflora.net/

http://michiganflora.net/

http://universalfqa.org/

http://universalfqa.org/
















http://habitatproject.org/WildThings2015/Resources/2F/Greg Spyreas - Guide to Floristic Quality.pdf






FQA 101: Using the Floristic Quality Assessment for ... · PDF fileAdam Thada 2016 Stewardship...

Documents

Transcript of FQA 101: Using the Floristic Quality Assessment for ... · PDF fileAdam Thada 2016 Stewardship...