Report of the Mansfield Plant Monitors, Spring – Fall 2008
Establishment and Description of Permanent Monitoring Plots in Schoolhouse Brook Park and Their Potential Use in Assessing Impact of Invasive Species Control Efforts
Pat Bresnahan, Roberta Coughlin, Jean Haskell, Becky Lehman, Charlotte Pyle
March 19, 2009
Correspondence can be directed to: Jennifer Kaufman, Parks Coordinator, Town of Mansfield Parks and Recreation Department, address, email address? Or Charlotte?
Who exactly will be reading this report?
1Executive Summary
2Origins and Purpose of the Project
3Monitoring Sites and Protocol
3.1The WHIP Fields
3.2The Monitoring Sites
3.3Plant Data Collection
4Invasive Removal Operations
5Observations and Discussion
5.1Updated Schoolhouse Brook Park Species List
5.2Species Counts and Nativity
5.3Optimum Sampling Dates and Plant Phenology
6Future Work
APPENDICES
1Executive Summary
TODO: Anyone want to take a shot at this? I can help with this after Charlotte/Jennifer contribute with the Invasives Removal Operation section 4. This missing information will be important for the title part “Their Potential Use in Assessing Impact of Invasive Species Control Efforts “.
You have already mentioned some trends in the data that could be included here…great! Including some 2008 finding about each of the three purposes listed in Section 2, along with suggestions for 2009 work would also be good in the summary.
Perhaps it should also be established here (and maybe you have already talked about this) how to report the data each year. For instance, will this document be the base for all future annual reports about this project?
2Origins and Purpose of the Project
The Mansfield Plant Monitors (MPM) are a group of volunteers interested in observing and chronicling plant biodiversity in the Town of Mansfield. Members conduct hikes in town parks and maintain records of their observations in a central database. They are a self-organized group of trained amateur botanists serving within the Parks and Preserves department of the Town of Mansfield, CT, Natural Areas Volunteer program. In 2008, the group focused its efforts on a set of permanent plots established in Schoolhouse Brook Park. This work was motivated by an interest in monitoring the impact of an invasive species removal project funded by a grant to the town from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP). By focusing on these plots and the surrounding areas, the MPM work will:
- Update the park’s plant species checklist
- Provide a set of baseline information about the park that can be used by future observers to assess long-term environmental change
- Help assess the impact of the invasive control efforts, and the degree to which assessment can be conducted by trained volunteers
3Monitoring Sites and Protocol
The 2008 work focused on three of the ten fields designated as work areas under the WHIP grant. One of the first tasks of the group was to develop a sampling protocol for the fields that could easily be implemented by volunteers. After much discussion and trial-and-error, it was decided to establish several pairs of permanent 1 x 1 meter quadrant plots in each field. Each quad pair consisted of two plots: a “Heavy” plot dominated by one or more invasive species, and a “Light” plot, located nearby with a similar physical environment, but few or no invasives. Plots were visited periodically throughout the growing season and on each visit, the number and phenological stage of each species in the plot were recorded. In addition, a general reconnaissance of the parent “field” was conducted and its species information recorded.
3.1The WHIP Fields
In XXXX the town of Mansfield received a $XXXX “Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program” (WHIP) grant from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for invasive species control in Schoolhouse Brook Park. Because the invasive removal work would be conducted over a ten year period, a series of ten fields were identified to help define the scope of work for each year (see Figure 1). These fields lie along the riparian corridor in the park. Because invasive removal work was scheduled to begin in Fields 8, 9 and 10, the MPM survey began with these fields in 2008. The locations and descriptions of the three fields are provided in Table 1 below.
Figure 1. Map of Schoolhouse Brook WHIP Fields.
TODO: Clean up the map or get a better one. Should we include maps of the individual fields we worked on with approximate locations of witness trees and plots? I think it would be great to include individual maps of each Field, perhaps in the Appendix. Each Field should have text descriptions (Charlotte’s locations) and why they were chosen for invasives removal. The three Fields sampled in 2008 (8,9,10) should have plots and witness trees located if possible. This would be great for future work.
Also a “vicinity map” is always useful to the reader…Mansfield CT location (and landscape and historical land use description), SHPB location (watershed info).
Table 1. Description of WHIP Fields 8, 9 and 10
Field / Location / HabitatField 8 /
- South of Clover Mill Road
- East of Barrows Pond, east of old foundation on hillcrest
- North of Barrows Trail
Field 9 /
- Southof Clover Mill Road
- East of #120 Clover Mill Road, between road and stream, near stream
Field 10 /
- North of Clover Mill Road
- North of main parking lot.
- Field to Right of beginning of Roadrunner Trail
3.2The Monitoring Sites
In Field 8 and Field 10, two pairs of permanent 1x1 meter quadrant plots were set up. In Field 9, three pairs of quadrant plot were set up. Each pair was given a quad ID (i.e., “Q1”), with the heavily and lightly invaded plots designated with “H” or “L” as in Q1H, Q1L. Plots were anchored at their due north and south corners by approx 2’ long sections of rebar, pounded into the ground. In order to be able to locate these sites in the future, the positions (angles and distances) of the north corners were measured relative to two witness trees, and the trees were marked with numbered, metal tags. The descriptions and locations of the witness trees are listed in Table 2. In some cases, the same witness tree was used for more than one plot. The distances and angles of each plot’s north corner from the witness trees are listed in Table 3. The plot/quadrat location information provided in Tables 2 and 3, are very important for training new volunteers and continuing the data collection for the next nine years. Also providing Field maps with quadrat locations and witness trees would make this even more user-friendly, although this could end up being a lot of work for us!
Table 2. Site Witness Trees: Location and Description
Field Number / WitnessTree Tag Number / Witness
Tree Species / Witness Tree Notes
Field 8 / 37 / Red Maple / 1' diameter next to dead tree
Field 8 / 41 / Red Maple / Near where slope breaks downward. Flanked by 2 small beech saplings; with 3: branch, 4' from base. One of two medium sized maples located E of stone wall, running E-W, about 13 m apart
Field 8 / 42 / Red Maple / N most red maple in clump of 5 live + 1 dead. Just outside of foundation wall S of opening. Medium sized maples located E of stone wall, running E-W, about 13 m apart
Field 8 / 45 / Red Maple? / 10" diameter, with 5" diameter branch 10' up trunk
Field 9 / 40 / Medium sized ? / 20 ft S of Clover Mill Rd
Field 9 / 43 / Sugar Maple / Medium sized, 10 ft N of brook
Field 9 / 44 / Medium sized / 10 feet N of brook
Field 9 / 46 / Oak? / 6" diameter, 5' west of stream edge
Field 9 / 47 / Oak? / 10" diameter, 10' N of stream
Field 9 / 100 / Sugar Maple / 10" diameter, between large boulder and stream, 3' N of stream
Field 10 / 38 / Unknown / No notes
Field 10 / 39 / Pignut Hickory / 70 cm circumference
Field 10 / 729 / Old Apple
Field 10 / 763 / Eastern Red Cedar
TODO: Clean up the tree species and descriptions Good goal for 2009 work! Double-checking Table 3 information would be great, too.
Table 3. Quad Plot Locations Relative to Witness Trees
Field / Plot ID / WitnessTree
Number / Meters
From Tree / Degrees
From Tree
Field 8 / Q1_H / 41 / 6.84 / 252
Field 8 / Q1_H / 42 / 6.33 / 100
Field 8 / Q1_L / 41 / 3.05 / 256
Field 8 / Q1_L / 42 / 9.73 / 86
Field 8 / Q2_H / 37 / 7.45 / 32
Field 8 / Q2_H / 45 / 0.81 / 68
Field 8 / Q2_L / 37 / 1.15 / 156
Field 8 / Q2_L / 45 / 7.02 / 42
Field 9 / Q1_H / 40 / 4.65 / 82
Field 9 / Q1_H / 44 / 10.3 / 354
Field 9 / Q1_L / 40 / 6.90 / 162
Field 9 / Q1_L / 44 / 4.95 / 304
Field 9 / Q2_H / 43 / 0.37 / 0
Field 9 / Q2_H / 46 / 3.58 / 0
Field 9 / Q2_L / 43 / 3.09 / 2
Field 9 / Q2_L / 46 / 1.30 / 136
Field 9 / Q3_H / 47 / 8.10 / 267
Field 9 / Q3_H / 100 / 2.40 / 85
Field 9 / Q3_L / 47 / 6.35 / 267
Field 9 / Q3_L / 100 / 4.10 / 85
Field 10 / Q1_H / 38 / 36.50 / 108
Field 10 / Q1_H / 39 / 26.75 / 9
Field 10 / Q1_L / 729 / 24.20 / 246
Field 10 / Q1_L / 763 / 36.95 / 278
Field 10 / Q2_H / 729 / 11.04 / 177
Field 10 / Q2_H / 763 / 15.82 / 283
Field 10 / Q2_L / 729 / 7.96 / 206
Field 10 / Q2_L / 763 / 20.60 / 292
3.3Plant Data Collection
Volunteer monitors conducted field work on seventeen days during the 2008 growing season: three in April, two in May, three in June, four in July, two in August and three in September (see Table 4). Most of the initial work focused on setting up the permanent plots. Once the plots were set up, the group’s goal was to visit each field at least once per month. The trips normally lasted 2-3 hours, and normally 2 or 3 people participated per trip. Has anyone set up a data collection schedule for 2009?
In the field, a quad plot was located and a plastic PVC 1x1 meter frame was aligned with the north and south corners’ permanent rebar stakes. Each species in the plot was identified to the extent possible. Initial identifications of the more common species were made in the field using Newcomb’s Guide[1]. Gleason and Cronquist[2] and the associated Illustrated Guide[3] were used for more difficult IDs. Gleason was also followed for the scientific names for plant family, genus and species. An attempt was also made to cross reference these names with the USDA’s plant ID codes.[4] In addition to recording quadrant plot species, a general reconnaissance of the plant species in the area surrounding the plots was also made.
Table 4. Plot Monitoring Schedule, 2008. Numbers indicate days visited.
Date / Field 8 / Field 9 / Field 10Q1_H / Q1_L / Q2_H / Q2_L / Q1_H / Q1_L / Q2_H / Q2_L / Q3_H / Q3_L / Q1_H / Q1_L / Q2_H / Q2_L
09-Apr-08 / 1 / 1
12-Apr-08 / 1 / 1
26-Apr-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
03-May-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
26-May-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
01-Jun-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
14-Jun-08 / 1 / 1
25-Jun-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
06-Jul-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
13-Jul-08
20-Jul-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
26-Jul-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
10-Aug-08 / 1 / 1 / 1
16-Aug-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
01-Sep-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
13-Sep-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
21-Sep-08 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
TOTAL
VISITS / 5 / 5 / 4 / 4 / 6 / 6 / 7 / 6 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 4
4Invasive Removal Operations
Invasive control operations were begun during the growing season. A description of the work undertaken is provided in Table 5. Jennifer? Charlotte? A list of invasive species “targeted” for removal, along with their observed location would be great here. Also the invasives landscape condition outside the control fields in the park and its vicinity should be described. Other invasives control operations within Mansfield? Education efforts? The Town’s Invasive Policy?
Table 5. Invasive Control Operations, Summer 2008
Field / Date / ControlMethod / Invasive Species / Description
Field 8
Field 9
Field 10
TODO: Complete this table Jennifer? Charlotte?
5Observations and Discussion
5.1Updated Schoolhouse Brook Park Species List
An updated list of the plant taxa reported from Schoolhouse Brook Park is provided in Appendix A. This list was compiled by merging the observations made in 2008 with those reported by others in previous years. The previous list for the park had 126 taxa and the new list has over 300, so roughly 175 new species were added to the list as a result of this year’s field work. The identifications should be taken as tentative, since voucher specimens were not collected and identities were not confirmed. An analysis of the nativity of the park’s species is shown in Figure 2. Roughly 70% of the reported species are native, 10% are non-native and with 20% nativity is unknown, either because identification was only to genus or because nativity information was unavailable at the time the species was entered into the database. Where nativity is known, then, about 85% of the species are native and 15% non-native. Are we willing to note any “interesting” species? Target ID vouchers to be collected this year (2009)?
Figure 2. Park and study field species counts and percentages. Note higher percentage of non-native species in Field 10.
I’m not sure I understand Figure 2 and the label coordination; perhaps my downloaded version got the shading wrong?
5.2Species Counts and Nativity
Species counts and percentages for the three study fields are also shown in Figure 2. Field 10, the abandoned orchard, had the most species with a count of 127, Field 8 the least with a count of 79, and Field 9 had 100 species. The abandoned orchard also had the highest percent of identifiably non-native species at about 25% while Fields 8 and 9, the forested areas, had about 10%.
TODO: Get acreages for park and estimated for fields Do we have any biodiversity information of numbers of species expected in “healthy” similar habitats? Non-native frequency in “healthy” habitats? Some comparative qualitative statement about the health of this park and our working plots would be great.
As might be expected, the 1x1 meter plots had far fewer species than their surrounding, several-acre fields (see Figure 3). There is some indication that plots “heavily” infested with invasives had fewer species than “lightly” infested plots. Of the seven quad pairs, six had more species in the “Light” plot than the “Heavy” plots, which were often dominated by one or two large individuals of an invasive species such as barberry or Autumn Olive.
With so many species with “unknown” nativity, comparison of the percentages of native vs. non-native species in the plots may not be meaningful. Nevertheless, of the seven quad pairs, five seemed to have a higher percent non-native in the “Heavy” plot, one had a lower percent, and in one the percent was about the same.
Figure 3. Field and permanent monitoring quad species counts and percentages
Again, the shading choices need to be standardized in my version.
5.3Optimum Sampling Dates and Plant Phenology
The MPM group managed to get teams in the field for at least three weekends per month during the growing season, and one Field (2 or 3 quad pairs) could usually be monitored in a 2 or 3 hour period, usually a Saturday or Sunday morning. The number of species that are present and identifiable changes throughout the growing season. In the forested areas, the spring ephemerals such as Rue Anemone are seen and identified only in early spring, while the meadow, the various species of asters and goldenrods are only identifiable in late summer to early fall. Note optimum date ranges for habitats (maybe forest and field would be enough at this point), based on collected phonological data so far. Part of the work last year was to establish when the data collection should start and end.
Species Numbers, By Date. Figure 4 shows the total number of taxa that were observed in a sampling location by sampling week. Historical data for the entire Schoolhouse Brook Park are provided as reference. While a few species are identifiable in early – mid April, large numbers are not usually seen until late April or early May. Within a Field, species numbers then held relatively steady from May through July, and in the forested areas (but not the meadow) the number of species observed declined in August. For the park as a whole, based on historical anecdotal reports combined with the 2008 data, species numbers seem to peak in July. (For Field 10 the July data are incomplete because the quads could not all be located, and plots were not set up until the week of May 24).
Species Composition, By Date. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the actual species that were seen in Fields 8, 9 and 10. These figures would be even more valuable to the reader (or plant monitor) if they incorporated an optimum time for identification (flower or fruit time), say an “x” on the week(s) when identification parts can usually be seen on the plant. The figures also show the weeks of the year that these species have been reported by MPM on hikes in Mansfield over the past 20 years or so. These observed date ranges do not necessarily correspond to the true phenological range of a species, however in many cases, especially for the more common and easily identifiable species, they give a good indication of what that phenological range might be. Similar lists for each quad are shown in Appendix B.
The database developed by the Mansfield Plant Monitors contains records of plant species seen in the Town of Mansfield. Most of the observations were made on hikes taken since about 1988. Other species lists have been contributed over the years that were not associated with particular hikes, so observation dates are not associated with those records. Mention these sources by name, where available on website? By pooling the records for a particular species and retrieving the earliest and latest dates in the year that these plants were reported, some sense of that plant’s phenology can be determined. However, this is most reliable for the most common and easily identifiable species. The rarer species are not often seen, so their date ranges are less likely to represent their true phenology. Also, in many cases a species can only be identified to genus early or late in the season. So species with narrow ranges on the following graphs may either be rarer, or perhaps misidentified.