Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:27:03.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing monitoring protocols for cost-effective surveillance of lichens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2014

Andrea J. BRITTON ,
Ruth J. MITCHELL ,
Jacqueline M. POTTS  and
David R. GENNEY
Andrea J. BRITTON
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK. Email: ruth.mitchell@hutton.ac.uk
Ruth J. MITCHELL*
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK. Email: ruth.mitchell@hutton.ac.uk
Jacqueline M. POTTS
Affiliation:
Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
David R. GENNEY
Affiliation:
Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness IV3 8NW, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The criteria set out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to identify threatened species requires information on population trends which, for priority lichen species within Scotland, is lacking. Collecting such data is problematic as there is a lack of empirical information on the performance of different sampling designs and survey methodologies. Using Pseudocyphellaria norvegica as an example species, we tested differences in the efficiency of 3 transect patterns and a 20 minute search for surveying 100×100 m cells of potentially suitable habitat. The methods were not intended to census the total population of the cells but, rather, to provide a standardized, repeatable estimate of the population density to allow detection of trends through time. We also tested the repeatability of the methods between surveyors. The results provided no evidence to suggest that controlled survey methodologies using fixed transect patterns were any better in terms of consistency between surveyors or numbers of occupied trees found than 20 minute searches of the areas within each 100×100 m cell deemed suitable for the target species by an experienced surveyor. Given that following the fixed transect patterns took approximately twice as long as a 20 minute search, the search method would clearly be more cost-effective when there are large numbers of cells to survey. For all survey methods variability between surveyors was high, meaning that it would be extremely difficult to detect temporal changes in populations, and hence identify population trends. We also examined the extent to which recording presence/absence at the 1 ha scale might improve consistency between surveyors and found that it reduced, but did not eliminate, the surveyor variability. Recording only presence/absence would allow greater numbers of cells to be surveyed using the same level of resources, but would reduce the amount of information available per cell for use in analysis of population trends. We conclude that controlling inter-surveyor variability while collecting adequate data for population trend analysis is a major issue when planning and implementing any large-scale survey of lichen species.

Keywords

biodiversity monitoringbiomonitoringpopulation trendsPseudocyphellaria norvegicaquality assuranceScotlandsurveyor variability
Type
Articles
Information
The Lichenologist , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 471 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © British Lichen Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acton, A. (2005) Site condition monitoring for lichens in Scotland. Glenn Nant SSSI: Establishing Baseline Site Condition Monitoring. Scottish Natural Heritage.Google Scholar
Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R. E. & Mace, G. M. (2005) The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 360: 221–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Lichen Society (undated) British Lichen Society Database: Scotland. http://www.britishlichensociety.org.uk/recording-mapping/bls-databases (Accessed September 2011).Google Scholar
Britton, A. J., Mitchell, R. J., Potts, J. M. & Genney, D. R. (2013) Development of a surveillance scheme for priority lichens in Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 567. Inverness: SNH.Google Scholar
Brunialti, G., Giordani, P., Isocrono, D. & Loppi, S. (2002) Evaluation of data quality in lichen biomonitoring studies: the Italian experience. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 75: 271–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunialti, G., Frati, L., Cristofolini, F., Chiarucci, A., Giordani, P., Loppi, S., Benesperi, R., Cristofori, A., Critelli, P., Di Capua, E., et al. (2012) Can we compare lichen diversity data? A test with skilled teams. Ecological Indicators 23: 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Council (2001) Presidency Conclusions, Goteburg Council, 15 and 16 June 2001. SN/200/1/01 REV1, p. 8.Google Scholar
Giordani, P., Brunialti, G., Benesperi, R., Rizzi, G., Frati, L. & Modenesi, P. (2009) Rapid biodiversity assessment in lichen diversity surveys: implications for quality assurance. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11: 730–735.Google Scholar
Griffith, A. (2010) Site Condition Monitoring for Lichens in Scotland. Glenn Nant SSSI. Scottish Natural Heritage.Google Scholar
Hartley, S. & Kunin, W. E. (2003) Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk and conservation priority. Conservation Biology 17: 1559–1570.Google Scholar
Highland Birchwoods (undated) Scottish Semi-Natural Woodland Inventory. http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/. Accessed October 2011.Google Scholar
Hovestadt, T. & Nowicki, P. (2008) Process and measurement errors of population size: their mutual effects on precision and bias of estimates for demographic parameters. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3417–3429.Google Scholar
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 3.1., Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom: IUCN Species Survival Commission, IUCN Google Scholar
JNCC (2005) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Bryophytes and Lichens, Version July 2005, ISSN 1743-8160 (Online http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2231).Google Scholar
Joseph, L. N. & Possingham, H. P. (2008) Grid-based monitoring methods for detecting population declines: sensitivity to spatial scale and consequences of scale correction. Biological Conservation 141: 1868–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhl, M., Traub, B. & Paivinen, R. (2000) Harmonisation and standardisation in multi-national environmental statistics—mission impossible? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kull, T., Sammul, M., Kull, K., Lanno, K., Tali, K., Gruber, B., Schmeller, D. & Henle, K. (2008) Necessity and reality of monitoring threatened European vascular plants. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3383–3402.Google Scholar
Legg, C. J. & Nagy, L. (2006) Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. Journal of Environmental Management 78: 194–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lengyel, S., Déri, E., Varga, Z., Horváth, R., Tóthmérész, B., Henry, P. Y., Kobler, A., Kutnar, L., Babij, V., Seliškar, A., et al. (2008) Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 3327–3339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. E., Knutson, M. G. & Franklin, A. B. (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonisation, and local extinction when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84: 2200–2207.Google Scholar
McCune, B., Dey, J. P., Peck, J. E., Cassell, D., Heiman, K., Will-Wolf, S. & Neitlich, P. N. (1997) Repeatability of community data: species richness versus gradient scores in large-scale lichen studies. Bryologist 100: 40–46.Google Scholar
Scheidegger, C. & Werth, S. (2009) Conservation strategies for lichens: insights from population biology. Fungal Biology Reviews 23: 55–66.Google Scholar
Scottish Executive (2004) Scotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands. ISBN 0-7559-4120-9 (online at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/05/19366/37239).Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (2002) Report on the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20/Part2) Strategic Plan Decision VI/26 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2002) p. 319. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-20-part2-en.pdf.Google Scholar
VSN International (2011) GenStat for Windows 14th Edition. Hemel Hempstead, UK: VSN International. Web page: www.GenStat.co.uk.Google Scholar