Analysis of the Performance of two Rangeland Protocols, Monitoring and Assessment

Soumana Idrissa,Sigþrúður Jónsdóttir,Ása L Aradóttir

doi:10.5539/jps.v5n2p47

Soumana Idrissa, Sigþrúður Jónsdóttir + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.5539/jps.v5n2p47

Copy DOI

Abstract

<p>This study compared and contrasted data from the stick and modified Braun-Blanquet monitoring protocols in three areas with different land use histories: an unrestored barren area, a young and old restored areas. The study areas are part of extensive degraded of birch woodland and willow shrubland that have partly been re-vegetated.Vegetation and site characteristics were assessed in the three areas using the two protocols and soil sampling to characterize the ecological status of a land that has been re-vegetated. The analysis of the two protocols data indicates similar tendency which is the improvement of the ecological condition of the restored areas compared to the unrestored area. The soil carbon and nitrogen contents increased when the pH decreased with the restoration age. The improvement is better at the old restored area which has received more fertilization compared to the young restoration. Stick method estimated greater cover of vascular plants, litters, mosses and rocks, and lower amount of bare ground than modified Braun-Blanquet. The two protocols provided similar estimates cover of lichens and sedges. Stick method also provided three supplementary indicators which were not included in modified Braun-Blanquet: plants base, basal and canopy gaps. Another observation that could be proved by further studies, stick seemed to be more precise and economical than modified Braun-Blanquet. The indicators provided by the two protocols were related to the three attributes of ecosystems and the rangelands health indicators. This study is a preliminary that cannot be able to recommend one method, but it advocates stick method to assess and monitor vegetation dominated by herbaceous layer as grassland and modified Braun-Blanquet for the one dominated by woody layer.</p>

Highlights

Monitoring biodiversity and detecting changes on natural resources are often been quantified by collecting data on vegetation composition and structure
Different studies have been carried out to describe several assessment protocols and show their strengths and weaknesses (Stohlgren et al, 1998; Prosser et al, 2003; Anderson & Fehmi, 2005; Carlsson et al, 2005; Godínez-Alvarez et al, 2009), this study proposed to determine the differences between the protocols described above and how the indicators they provided can be linked to the ecological status of a given land
GLM analysis done on the pooled data revealed significant effects of protocol types, restoration ages and their interaction for cover of total plant, rock, bare ground, moss, litter, grass, forb and shrub (Figure 4)

Summary

Introduction

Monitoring biodiversity and detecting changes on natural resources are often been quantified by collecting data on vegetation composition and structure. The typical example of indicators is the “ Indicators of Rangeland Health’ (IRH) developed by the United States land management agencies within a protocol titled ‘Interpreting Rangeland Indicators Health” to assess rangelands condition (see Pellant et al, 2000, 2005; Pyke et al, 2002; Herrick et al, 2006a; Herrick et al, 2006b; Herrick et al, 2012) In this protocol, 17 indicators of plants cover and diversity, soil, water component, etc., are used to assess three ecosystem attributes on which all lands use depend: Site and soil stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity (Toevs et al, 2011).

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion