Metadata for Field Data Collection
Name of Data Collector: Brad Agius
Date(s) of collection: 07/16/2003-8/14/2003 Time(s) of collection: 8am-5pm
Title of Project: Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site Invasive Plant Survey of 2003
Description of Project: The primary goals of this study were to 1) determine which invasive plant species inhabit the site; 2) determine the percent cover and density of the dominant invasive plant species; and 3) map where the dominant invasive plant species occur within the site. Systematic surveys were conducted to quantify the abundance and distribution of terrestrial and aquatic-emergent, invasive plant species, as well as the dominant native plant species at the Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site (site). No submerged aquatic vegetation was surveyed in this study, except for curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). The dominant native vegetation was recorded to determine if sufficient native plant material existed to recolonize sites naturally, following eradication of invasive species in a given area. The dominant native vegetation was categorized as trees, grasses, shrubs, and flowers.
Initial assessment of the problematic exotic plant species during the beginning of the project indicated 11 species as particularly invasive within the site. These 11 invasive plant species (primary species) were mapped within the site, including their density and percent cover. In addition, 31 exotic plant species (secondary species) surveyed were quantified in terms of density and percent cover: however, due to time/budget constraints, survey data for secondary species were not digitized. In addition, due to time/budget constraints, survey data for the dominant native vegetation were not digitized.
Description of data contribution to project: The entire project was based on the data collected in the field. Analysis for the Forging Changes to an American Landscape:
Invasive Plant Species at the Saugus Iron Works National Historic (Agius 2003) report were based on the primary invasive plant species data only.
Type of data collection and equipment/materials used:
GPS: NAD83, UTM, Zone 19 Unit type: Garmin V GPS hand held unit plugged into a CSI MBX-3S differential receiver backpack
Description of data collection methods (e.g. reference a standard method-- note any deviation from standard): Data collection was designed specifically for this project and followed no existing protocol. Survey were conducted in a systematic fashion, using grids created using GIS software (ESRI ArcView 3.2 ) and were overlaid on the site. Grids were saved in 'shapefile' format. The 50m x 50m (i.e., 0.25 hectare or 0.62 acres) grid was used to survey the entire site. Each of the 28, 50m x 50m, grid cells was assigned a unique ID number that was used for referencing grid cell locations.
During the survey, there were instances when a portion of the site was not covered by the grid, but those sections were systematically surveyed as well, to cover the site in its entirety. Prior to field surveys, black and white maps were printed that included the grid layer with individual grid attribute ID numbers, 1m black and white digital orthophotos (orthophotos), site boundary, scale bar and north arrow. Maps typically included a block of 4 grids per 8.5-inch x 11-inch pages, although other grid dimensions were used when necessary.
The grid shapefile was also uploaded into the GPS unit to aid in navigation. In the field, a piece of tracing paper was placed over the 2 x 2 grid map, and the corners of the grids marked for aligning the tracing paper with the grid map. The surveyor’s name, date, site, and grid numbers were recorded on the tracing paper.
Each grid was surveyed by bushwhacking the perimeter and then making transects (e.g., numerous transverse passes) within the grid until completely covered, with all targeted species quantified and mapped. Pinpointing locations in the field was done by referencing features on the ground (e.g., trails, roads, water bodies, trees, structures, fields, etc.) that were visible on the 1m black and white orthophotos; grid lines on the paper map; and the GPS tracks line, current position of GPS cursor, and grid lines on the GPS display screen. Using these references enabled the survey to be conducted with an accuracy of 1m or the margin of error produced by the GPS unit.
In the field, the 11 primary species were sketched onto the tracing paper using species-specific symbols in the exact location that they occurred in the field. In certain instances, there could be greater than 100 percent cover in a given location. Vertical stratification and overlapping of invasive species was prevalent and the vertical overlapping of invasive species was denoted by overlapping symbols on the tracing paper.
All the invasive species (primary and secondary) and dominant native species were recorded after completely bushwhacking each grid cell. The density and percent cover of each of the secondary exotic species and the four dominant native vegetation classes (i.e., trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers) were recorded per grid cell, if present. The 11 primary invasive species were documented using discrete polygons in each grid cell which could be larger or smaller than a quarter hectare, with multiple polygons per grid. Polygons were mapped on tracing paper (hand-drawn) as contiguous and discrete patches for each of the 11 primary species as they actually occurred in the field. The percent cover and density of each primary species was quantified for each polygon.
Location of data collection (if applicable). Specify source of coordinates, and projection/coordinate system used: NAD83, UTM, Zone 19
Source (e.g. topo map, GPS, other): Digital Orthophoto as base map
Description of geographic location: Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site, Saugus, Massachusetts
Species list (if applicable): List of primary invasive plant species in Table 1 and secondary exotic plant species in Table 2 (see below):
Does data require post-processing? Yes
Specify the procedure: Hand-drawn polygons created on tracing paper in the field were transferred into digital format using 'heads-up' digitizing capabilities of ArcView 3.2 (ESRI 1999). A separate shapefile was created for each of the primary invasive plant species (Table 1) with an attribute table containing the percent cover and density and area for each polygon. . The first field in the attribute table contained a unique ID number (arbitary, number in the order of polygon creation). The second field in the attribute table contained the density data for each polygon within five discrete categories (1, <20, 20-99, 100-999, or >1000). The third field in the attribute table contained the percent cover data for each polygon within six discrete categories (<1%, 1-5%, 6-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, or 76-100%). The fourth field in the attribute table contained the area (m-2) for each polygon.
Name of the 11 Shapefiles (.dbf, .sbn, .sbx, .shp, .shx):
asian bittersweet
common buckthorn
curly pondweed
garlic mustard
glossy bucktorn
japanese knotweed
mulitflora rose
norway maple
phragmites
purple loosestrife
tree of heaven
Person/office responsible for the procedure: Brad Agius
Explanations
1) Name of Data Collector: Name
Used in Section 1, as point of contact for dataset if applicable, and in Section 2-Lineage- Process Contact information AND/OR Source Date(s) of collection
2) Date(s) of data collection: Date for which the data correspond to the ground
Used in Section 1, Time Period of Content, OR Section 2, Source Time Period Content
Time(s) of data collection: Time period for which the data correspond to the ground.
Used in Section 1, Time Period of Content, OR Section 2, Source Time Period Content
3) Title of Project: How this dataset will be referenced. Indicate the name of this dataset OR the name of the larger project these data will serve.
Used in Section 1, Title (found under Citation information), OR Section 2, Lineage - Source Citation
4) Description of Project: Describe project listed in #4.
Used in Section 1, Description - Abstract
5) Description of data contribution to project: How does this dataset effect or contribute to the overall project or serve the research?
Used in Section 2, Lineage – Source Description and Source Contribution, AND possibly Process step; AND possibly Section 5, Description of Attributes
6) Type of data collection: Indicate if data are collected using GPS, samples (E.g. specimans, plots), or other. If GPS’ed indicated type of receiver used and name the data dictionary used to collect data. If samples are collected, indicate any specific equipment/materials used to collect samples if applicable.
Used in Section 1, Analytical Tool Description; AND Section 2, Attribute Accuracy; AND Lineage – Methodology, AND Source Description; AND Section 5 Entity and Attribute Information.
7) Description of data collection methods: Provide description of methods used in data
collection. This is a reference to a standard method used in the park or in literature. Note any deviation from standard.
Used in Section 1, Analytical Tool Description; AND Section 2, Attribute Accuracy; AND Lineage – Methodology, and possibly Source Description
8) Location of data collection (if applicable): If location of specimen collection is relevant,
indicate West, East, North, and South bounding coordinates, and source used to locate the position(s). Specify projection/coordinate system used (e.g. UTM; Lat/long; decimal degree, local, etc.). Also provide a written description of location (e.g. intersection of Halls Creek and Colorado River).
Used in Section 1, Spatial Domain, AND Section 3, Indirect Spatial Reference, AND throughout Section 4.
9) Species list (if applicable): Indicate species collected/sampled.
Used in Section 1, Taxonomy; AND possibly Section 5, Entity and Attribute Information.
10) Does data require post-processing: If data will be processed in lab, or by computer, indicate here in order to track the dataset. Specify the procedure and the person/office responsible for the procedure.
Used in Section 2, Lineage – Source Information, AND Process Step Information.