A Vegetation and Soil Survey Method for Surveillance Monitoring of Rangeland Environments

Sparrow, Ben; Foulkes, Jeff; Wardle, Glenda M.; Leitch, Emrys; Caddy‐Retalic, Stefan; Leeuwen, Stephen van; Tokmakoff, Andrew; Thurgate, Nikki; Guerin, Greg R.; Lowe, A. J.

doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.00157

Cited by 36 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Programs designed to collect a wide suite of soil, vegetation and fauna data and samples are well positioned to feed into this EBV framework. Programs such as the Ecological Surveillance program (previously Ausplots) of Australia's Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN) (Sparrow et al ., 2020) and the MARAS system (Oliva et al ., 2019) in Patagonia collect information on a wide range of variables. The MARAS program is particularly notable as a cross‐jurisdictional large‐scale environmental monitoring program because it requires international cooperation (Argentina and Chile) for the program's successful operation.…”

Section: An Explanation Of Monitoring Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The real strength of surveillance monitoring programs is their ability to detect environmental change at a scale that enables regional and continental assessment (Stevens, 1994; Watson & Novelly, 2004; Wood et al ., 2015; Guerin et al ., 2017; Sparrow et al ., 2020). The current lack of widespread systematic surveillance monitoring impedes broad‐scale analysis of change in the environment (Bastin et al ., 2009).…”

Section: An Explanation Of Monitoring Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effective ecosystem monitoring requires a multi‐scaled approach

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem monitoring is fundamental to our understanding of how ecosystem change is impacting our natural resources and is vital for developing evidence‐based policy and management. However, the different types of ecosystem monitoring, along with their recommended applications, are often poorly understood and contentious. Varying definitions and strict adherence to a specific monitoring type can inhibit effective ecosystem monitoring, leading to poor program development, implementation and outcomes. In an effort to develop a more consistent and clear understanding of ecosystem monitoring programs, we here review the main types of monitoring and recommend the widespread adoption of three classifications of monitoring, namely, targeted, surveillance and landscape monitoring. Landscape monitoring is conducted over large areas, provides spatial data, and enables questions relating to where and when ecosystem change is occurring to be addressed. Surveillance monitoring uses standardised field methods to inform on what is changing in our environments and the direction and magnitude of that change, whilst targeted monitoring is designed around testable hypotheses over defined areas and is the best approach for determining the causes of ecosystem change. The classification system is flexible and can incorporate different interests, objectives, targets and characteristics as well as different spatial scales and temporal frequencies, while also providing valuable structure and consistency across distinct ecosystem monitoring programs. To support our argument, we examine the ability of each monitoring type to inform on six key types of questions that are routinely posed for ecosystem monitoring programs, such as where and when change is occurring, what is the magnitude of change, and how can the change be managed? As we demonstrate, each type of ecosystem monitoring has its own strengths and weaknesses, which should be carefully considered relative to the desired results. Using this scheme, scientists and land managers can design programs best suited to their needs. Finally, we assert that for our most serious environmental challenges, it is essential that we include information from each of these monitoring scales to inform on all facets of ecosystem change, and this is best achieved through close collaboration between the scales. With a renewed understanding of the importance of each monitoring type, along with greater commitment to monitor cooperatively, we will be well placed to address some of our greatest environmental challenges.

show abstract

Section: An Explanation Of Monitoring Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Explanation Of Monitoring Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effective ecosystem monitoring requires a multi‐scaled approach

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many authors recommend the collection of a minimum of 1000 intercepts in rangelands to quantify cover per species (Lodge and Gleeson, 1976;Holm et al, 1984;Friedel and Shaw, 1987;Vittoz and Guisan, 2007). Following this research, our method utilises 1010 point intercepts along transects to determine vegetation cover per species across the plot.…”

Section: Floristics and Vegetationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During this process, the location of threatened or highly collectable species is de-natured (Lowe et al, 2017). The data are then made freely available on the web portal for discovery, download and re-use (Turner et al, 2017) using a Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) by attribution licence, or via the R package ausplotsR. (Guerin et al, 2019).…”

Section: Data Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the primary purpose of the program is to detect changes over large scales of space and over long periods of time, it also provides readily available resources to answer pressing current questions. For example, this method incorporates data collection (Tokmakoff et al, 2016) to address key long-standing questions for rangeland ecosystems (Morton et al, 2011), including understanding the role of soils and plant traits on productivity (Bastin et al, 2017;Gallagher et al, 2019 Accepted with Revisions). The combination of vegetation data and samples can be used to extract trait data or genomic data to anticipate responses to environmental stressors across large gradients (Westoby et al, 2002;Wright et al, 2004;Guerin et al, 2012;Caddy-Retalic et al, 2017) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Vegetation and Soil Survey Method for Surveillance Monitoring of Rangeland Environments

Sparrow

Foulkes

Wardle

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem surveillance monitoring is critical to managing natural resources and especially so under changing environments. Despite this importance, the design and implementation of monitoring programs across large temporal and spatial scales has been hampered by the lack of appropriately standardised methods and data streams. To address this gap, we outline a surveillance monitoring method based on permanent plots and voucher samples suited to rangeland environments around the world that is repeatable, cost-effective, appropriate for large-scale comparisons and adaptable to other global biomes. The method provides comprehensive data on vegetation composition and structure along with soil attributes relevant to plant growth, delivered as a combination of modules that can be targeted for different purposes or available resources. Plots are located in a stratified design across vegetation units, landforms and climates to enhance continental and global comparisons. Changes are investigated through revisits. Vegetation is measured to inform on composition, cover and structure. Samples of vegetation and soils are collected and tracked by barcode labels and stored long-term for subsequent analysis. Technology is used to enhance the accuracy of field methods, including differential GPS r plot locations, instrument based Leaf Area Index (LAI) measures, and three dimensional photo-panoramas for advanced analysis. A key feature of the method is the use of electronic field data collection to enhance data delivery into a publicly-accessible database.Our method is pragmatic, whilst still providing consistent data, information and samples on key vegetation and soil attributes. The method is operational and has been applied at more than 704 field locations across the Australian rangelands as part of the Ecosystem Surveillance program of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN). The methodology enables continental analyses, and has been tested in communities broadly representative of rangelands globally, with components being applicable to other biomes. Here we also recommend the consultative process and guiding principles that drove the development of this method as an approach for development of the method into other biomes. The consistent, standardised and objective method enables continental, and potentially global analyses than were not previously possible with disparate programs and datasets.

show abstract