[APWG] Ecosystem Restoration Survey method assessment Re: Toe point survey can categorize a site as to quality

[Wayne Tyson]

Well CD and all,

As I've tried to make clear in previous postings, I can't argue with what I 
call "barnyard transects" to informally provide a quick and dirty assessment 
of, say, a "grassland." I'm only concerned that "surveys" not be 
misrepresented as fairly characterizing the state of the biota. I, too, 
would like to see a formal assessment as to sample adequacy for that 
purpose, but I fear that, without more explanation from CD as to his 
theoretical foundations, he will have a hard time getting any neutral party 
interested. I am, frankly, concerned about the potential for the GIGO 
effect, especially if transects are selected by the people conducting the 
survey. I've seen amateurish work done by Ph.D's and amateurish work done by 
amateurs and dilettantes. The latter have to be extra careful rather than 
extra careless to be taken seriously.

I suggest that anyone who wishes to characterize any biological assemblage 
to get a textbook that outlines tried-and-true survey methods and follow 
them. Simple, even quick and easy methods exist that will be accepted by 
science (and fairly characterize a biological assemblage) that do not 
require a Ph.D to conduct. It would be a shame to have a lot of people spend 
a lot of time on such work, only to have it discredited by science. For 
better or for worse, that's what it will take to make progress.

Any method that prescribes an arbitrarily-determined sample size, especially 
one founded in convenience alone, must be considered suspect and therefore 
must demonstrate its validity to a reasonable standard based on logic.

WT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" <Craig at astreet.com>
To: <apwg at lists.plantconservation.org>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: [APWG] Toe point survey can categorize a site as to quality


> Dear Wayne and All,
>
> Thanks for your email.  First you take a grassland habitat that looks
> fairly uniform, like most of the pictures I show at
> http://www.ecoseeds.com/WMA.html.
>
> I am hoping that you will be able to go out this spring, and take a fairly
> uniform looking grassland area, and do a 33 toe-point paces, and also 50
> paces and 100 paces, then do them again but cross the area at a different
> angle.
>
> Then match the results with the quality guide that I have put together on
> that web page, with 0-25% wildflower and native grass cover is Very poor,
> and 26-50%=Poor, etc.  up to 99.5-100%=As Good as it gets.
>
> The only reason why you need more than 33 paces, is when the quality falls
> at the border between two quality grades, like the hill at Edgewood I show
> on the web page.  Then, I am recommending more paces, to see what side of
> the border that the area solidly falls into.
>
> The problem is that most vegetation cover measurements are much too
> complicated or time consuming, so NEVER get done, even though the
> environmental laws in California (CEQA) requires before-and-after
> vegetation monitoring when a public agency does a vegetation management or
> weed management project on public lands, or NEPA rules apply if the
> project is on Federal lands.
>
> That is what happened at our local Open Space preserve, Russian Ridge,
> that had the best non-serpentine wildflowers for 250 miles here in Central
> California, when five burns were set over a decade to manage the weeds,
> but killed the natives instead---and nobody evolved with the burns did ANY
> kind or type of vegetation cover measurements of the before-and-after
> burns.
>
> Fortunately, just for fun for the last nine years, I went out and did my
> own toe-points, and no matter how crude the method is, my toe-point are
> the only records that exists for those years, before and after the burns.
>
> My toe-points clearly show that the weeds massively spread and the natives
> were massively killed over that ten year period. So something simple that
> can be repeated by anyone in a few minutes each year, is always much
> better than the Dark Ages of no data at all.
>
> Try what I am suggesting, with criss-crossing of an area with different
> lengths of toe-points, and I think everyone working in grassland habitats
> will fall in love with the method, and also love the simple categories of
> quality that I am proposing.  I will look forward to hearing about anyone
> who goes out and tests this method.
>
> Sincerely,  Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the 
> opinion of the individual posting the message.
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2411/4954 - Release Date: 04/23/12
>