USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998 1

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-5

October 1998

Time-Lapse Photography to Monitor

Riparian Meadow Use

John W. Kinney

Warren P. Clary

John W. Kinney is a Range Technician and Warren P. Clary is a

Supervisory Range Scientist at the Rocky Mountain Research

Station’s Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 316 E. Myrtle St., Boise, ID

83702.

Abstract—Riparian zones are key areas of most western landscapes. The kinds and amounts of natural and

human activity occurring on these sites are often in

dispute as many riparian areas in the mountain West

are remote or have limited seasonal access. Impacts by

wild ungulates, domestic livestock, or recreationists

can result in relatively similar damages to streamside

environments. Competing interests often blame other

uses for perceived resource damage. These questions of

use can become serious management issues.

Time-lapse photography is proposed as a use documentation method to help guide management decisions.

An example of the time-lapse method is presented to

illustrate one of many potential uses. Examples of

equipment and equipment costs are also provided.

Servicing of the monitoring equipment may be needed

at only infrequent intervals, depending on the kind of

imaging sequence required and the equipment used.

Keywords: domestic livestock, wild ungulates, recreationists, competing uses

Riparian areas of the mountain West are the center

of much natural and human activity. Numerous conflict possibilities arise because of human desires for

forage, wood, precious metals, recreation, and pleasurable surroundings. One of the most widespread of these

conflicts, or at least the perception of conflict, is between domestic livestock and native fauna. Potential

conflicts involve a wide array of native fishes (Armour

and others 1991), amphibians (Reaser 1996), land

birds (Saab and others 1995), and big game (Hurlburt

and Bedunah 1996; Lacey and others 1993). The relative economic values of the competing uses are often an

issue (Bernardo and others 1994; Cory and Martin

1985). Concerns of comparative resource damage are

also important (USDA-USDI 1997). In some cases it

has been found that livestock have not had the assumed impact on wildife habitats and populations

(Sedgwick and Knopf 1987, 1991), yet damage from

recreational activities has been severe (Cole and Marion

1988; Saab 1996).

As questions arise concerning animal and recreational use of riparian locations, information may be

particularly difficult to obtain for those locations that

are remote. Interpretations of use are often speculative. If a riparian area has the appearance of deteriorating conditions, the cause must be determined if

managers are to address the problem. Thus, a typical

use of time-lapse imaging would likely be to record the

relative amounts of different uses on a riparian meadow.

For example, researchers in an Arizona study were

able to separate the relative use of forest openings by

cattle, elk, deer, and turkey using Super 8 time-lapse

photography activated for daylight use by photoelectric cells (Ffolliott and others 1977). Time-lapse photography can provide a visual record of large animal

and recreationist activity through time within prescribed portions of riparian meadows.

An Example of Time-Lapse

Application_____________________

The objectives of this particular application were to

determine where cattle were spending their time on a

meadow, what their apparent activity was, and if

interpretations from these observations correlated with

ground measures of grazing effects.
2 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998

Methods _______________________

The study was conducted along Stanley Creek,

Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho, as part of a controlled grazing

experiment (Clary and Booth 1993). Time-lapse photography was used to document the positions of cattle

within several pastures. Pastures 1 (medium stocking), 4 (light stocking), and 5 (medium stocking) were

documented for 2, 4, and 3 years, respectively. A total

of 10 to 23 days of picture sequences were obtained per

pasture. Photographs were obtained using a 35-mm

SLR camera, with a motor drive and a 250-exposure

magazine back controlled by an intervalometer (fig. 1).

The camera was positioned in a protective case on hill

slope sites approximately 12 to 30 m above the meadow

level. Photographs were taken at 20-minute intervals

during daylight hours. Each animal in view on a projected transparency was classified for location on broad

plant community-soil groups—streamside (13 percent

of the area), wet graminoid (12 percent), dry graminoid

(53 percent), dry shrub (9 percent), and mixed types (13

percent). Enlarged comparison photographs of the same

views, taken late in the summer when vegetation color

could be used to differentiate between wet and dry

sites, were used to interpret cattle locations on projected transparencies. The activity of each animal was

classified into one of three categories: standing with

head down (assumed to be actively grazing), standing

with head up (assumed to be ruminating or resting), or

laying down (assumed to be ruminating or resting).

Cattle location data would typically be analyzed by

Chi-square (Byers and Steinhorst 1984), however, the

frequency of the time-lapse photographs did not provide completely independent observations for the location of individual animals. Therefore, cattle locations

per transparency were expressed as number per unit

area or density. Analysis of variance was conducted

using a General Linear Model PC software package.

Pastures and years were included in the analysis as

explanatory variables to account for differences in

animal stocking densities, but the variables were not a

focus of the analysis. The experimental unit was number of animals per hectare per plant-soil site per photograph. Probabilities of 0.05 or less were considered

significant.

Results and Discussion __________

A difference in the distribution of cattle among site

categories was readily apparent. The cattle were concentrated within the dry graminoid area (fig. 2) composed mainly of the tufted hairgrass community type

with substantial elements of the Kentucky bluegrass

community and the thickstem aster-Idaho fescue community. Animal densities in the dry graminoid meadow

locations were over an order of magnitude greater than

the mean of the remaining sites (P<0.01) (table 1). The

head down, head up, and laying down positions all

followed similar trends, although the proportion of

total cattle present that were laying down was greater

on the dry graminoid sites (P<0.05).

Cattle are known to be selective among range sites

for standing, lying, and walking activities. The location

of these activities may have only limited association

with herbage production and consumption (Dwyer 1961;

Weaver and Tomanek 1951). The cattle concentration

on the dry graminoid portion of the meadow was

greater than would be assumed from forage utilization

for that area. Average forage utilization ranged from

44.0 percent in the tufted hairgrass community (part of

the dry graminoid site) to 28.4 percent in the water

sedge community (part of the streamside site) (Clary

and Booth 1993). Livestock select bedding sites that

have a degree of environmental comfort (Arnold and

Dudzinski 1978). The high animal density on the dry

graminoid area was apparently in part because they

were resting and ruminating more on dry graminoid

sites. The wet graminoid, streamside, and mixed types

likely had a lower animal presence because of the higher

soil moisture contents of these sites, some of which were

quite boggy (Clary and Booth 1993). Reasons for avoidance of the upland shrub type may include the physical

presence of small shrubs, remaining stobs of dead

plants, and some surface stones that can make walking

more difficult and lying down less comfortable. Once on

Figure 1—Camera set-up used in the example

study. Camera has 28-85 mm zoom lens, motor

drive, 250-exposure magazine back, and intervalometer. When mounted for use, the camera is

inserted through the back (originally the lid) of the

modified ammo box such that the camera lens and

the light sensor of the intervalometer have access

to the glass window. The box is then closed and

sealed.
USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998 3

the dry graminoid area the cattle likely invested more

grazing time because the rate of forage intake would be

low on the dry, tufted hairgrass sites where leaf heights

are very short (Chacon and Stobbs 1976; Kinney and

Clary 1994); more grazing time would be required to

satisfy their forage requirement (Chacon and Stobbs

1976; Hodgson and Wilkinson 1968).

Figure 2—Time-lapse photograph of pasture 4 illustrating the concentration of cattle on the dry graminoid (DG)

portion of the meadow. Other sites are dry shrub (DS), wet graminoid (WG), mixed types (M), and streamside (S).

Table 1—Cattle densities (animals ha–1) within broad vegetation-soil categories as

determined from time-lapse photographs.

Vegetation-soil Standing, Standing,

category head down head up Laying down Total

Dry graminoid 14.22 ca 3.87 c 9.75 c 27.84 c

Dry shrub 0.48 a 0.05 a 0.07 a 0.60 a

Wet graminoid 0.93 b 0.20 b 0.13 ab 1.26 b

Mixed types 1.20 b 0.25 b 0.14 b 1.59 b

Streamside 0.26 a 0.07 a 0.22 b 0.55 a

a Numbers in columns followed by dissimiliar letters are different at P<0.05.

No determinations of night activities were made, but

bedding and night grazing typically occur in the approximate location of the cattle at onset of darkness

(Dwyer 1961; Weaver and Tomanek 1951). Thus, total

occupancy impact on the dry graminoid area probably

exceeded our photo record.
4 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998

Measures typically used in range management would

not have determined that the cattle were spending

such a high proportion of time on one site compared to

the others. Additional animal time on any site has the

potential of increased damage through trampling of

forage plants, soil compaction, and woody plant structural breakage. Thus, better interpretation of grazing

effects are possible with the additional information

provided by time-lapse photography. Examples of equipment and equipment costs, for those interested in

pursuing this type of monitoring, are provided below.

Examples and Costs of Available

Equipment

Costs associated with a time-lapse monitoring effort

vary considerably depending upon the requirements

and desires of the user. Current costs for the

 equipment used in the example presented are as

follows:

Camera body (35 mm) with 28-85 mm lens $1,550

Motor drive 250

Magazine back (250-exposure) 1,312

Cassettes (2) for magazine back 105

Intervalometer (Telonics, Phoenix, Arizona) 450

Ammo box (20 mm) with glass covered hole

in front for viewing (fig. 2) —

Total $3,667

A more economical set-up can be obtained approximately as follows:

Camera (35 mm) with built-in motor drive,

35-80 lens, and 36-exposure capacity $600

Intervalometer (Telonics, Phoenix, Arizona) 450

Ammo box (20 mm) with glass covered hole

in front for viewing —

Total $1,050

Telephoto lens for either of above cameras

(if necessary) $300

A drawback with the latter camera setup is the

limited film capacity of 36 exposures, although there

may not be a need to record images as often as the study

example presented (every 20 daylight minutes). A 36-

exposure roll would last 1 week if the intervalometer

were set to take one photo every 3 daylight hours

during long spring days, or about every 2.5 daylight

hours during shorter fall days, if general use of the area

was the primary interest. In cases where one image

every day or every several days would suffice, such as

need for a visual record of snow depths, snow melt,

water depth, or flooding, a 36-exposure roll of film

could last up to several months.

 Much of the earlier work utilized relatively economical Super 8-mm movie cameras (Ffolliott and

others 1977; Gillen and others 1985; Patton and others

1972). Availability of such cameras, film, and film

processing is now limited to mostly foreign sources.

Super 8 and 16-mm movie photography has largely

been replaced with video camera imaging. Some video

cameras were constructed previously with built-in intervalometers, but these models were dropped from

production due to lack of demand. Time-lapse segments can be taken, however, using video cameras

with a LANC jack and a LANC video controller. The

typical costs are:

Video camcorder with LANC jack $700-1,000

LANC video controller (MK

Enterprises, Blackstone, Virginia) 400

Ammo box (20 mm) with glass covered

hole in front for viewing

Total $1,100-1,400

A potential advantage of a video camcorder is the

high number of sequences that can be taken. For

instance, about 1,400 5-second sequences could be

recorded on a 2-hour tape. This is compared to 36 to 250

frames using the 35-mm cameras described above. A

good quality 4-head VCR and television set are necessary for clear viewing of paused frames. A 2-head VCR

will give a distorted or snowy paused frame. Camcorders

that have internal controls to view single frames within

the camera or through a television set can be obtained

for approximately $1,000 and up, thus eliminating the

requirement of a VCR.

References _____________________

Armour, C. L., Duff, D. A.; Elmore, W. 1991. The effects of livestock

grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries. 16(1): 7-11.

Arnold, G. W.; Dudzinski, M. L. 1978. Ethology of free-ranging

domestic animals. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.

198 p.

Bernardo, Daniel J.; Boudreau, Gregory W.; Bidwell, Terrance C.

1994. Economic tradeoffs between livestock grazing and wildlife

habitat: a ranch-level analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22(3):

393-402.

Byers, C. Randall; Steinhorst, R. K. 1984. Clarification of a technique

for analysis of utilization-availability data. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 48(3): 1050-1053.

Chacon, E; Stobbs, T. H. 1976. Influence of progressive defoliation of

a grass sward on the eating behavior of cattle. Australian Journal

of Agricultural Research. 27: 709-727.

Clary, Warren P.; Booth, Gordon D. 1993. Early season utilization of

mountain meadow riparian pastures. Journal of Range Management. 46(6): 493-497.

Cole, David N.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1988. Recreation impacts in some

riparian forests of the eastern United States. Environmental

Management. 12(1): 99-107.

Cory, Dennis C.; Martin, William E. 1985. Valuing wildlife for

efficient multiple use: elk versus cattle. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics. 10(2): 282-293.

Dwyer, Don D. 1961. Activities and grazing preferences of cows with

calves in northern Osage County, Oklahoma. Bull. B-588.

Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station. 61 p.

Ffolliott, Peter F.; Thill, Ronald E.; Clary, Warren P.; Larson,

Frederic R. 1977. Animal use of ponderosa pine forest openings.

Journal of Wildlife Management 41(4): 782-784.

Gillen, R. L.; Krueger, W. C.; Miller, R. F. 1985. Cattle use of riparian

meadows in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. Journal

of Range Management. 38(3): 205-209.
USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998 5

Hodgson, J.; Wilkinson, J. M. 1968. The influence of the quantity of

herbage offered and its digestibility on the amount eaten by

grazing cattle. Journal of the British Grassland Society. 23(1):

75-80.

Hurlburt, Kris; Bedunah, Don. 1996. Differences in plant composition in cattle and wild ungulate exclosures in north-central Montana. In: Evans, Keith E., comp. Sharing common ground on

western rangelands: proceedings of a livestock/big game symposium; 1996 February 26

-28; Sparks, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-343. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 19-24.

Kinney, John W.; Clary, Warren P. 1994. A photographic utilization

guide for key riparian graminoids. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-308.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13 p.

Lacey, John R.; Jamtgaard, Keith; Riggle, Lex; Hayes, Tiffany. 1993.

Impacts of big game on private land in southwestern Montana:

landowner perceptions. Journal of Range Management. 46(1):

31-37.

Patton, David R.; Scott, Virgil E.; Boeker, Erwin L. 1972. Construction of an 8-mm time-lapse camera for biological research. Res.

Pap. RM-88. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 8 p.

Reaser, Jamie K. 1996. Spotted frog: catalyst for sharing common

ground in the riparian ecosystems of Nevada’s range landscape.

In: Evans, Keith E., comp. Sharing common ground on western

rangelands: proceedings of a livestock/big game symposium; 1996

February 26-28; Sparks, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-343.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 32-39.

Saab, Victoria Ann. 1996. Influences of spatial scale and land-use

practices on habitat relationships of breeding birds in cottonwood

riparian forests. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. 140 p.

Thesis.

Saab, Victoria A.; Bock, Carl E.; Rich, Terrell D.; Dobkin, David S.

1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North America. In:

Martin, Thomas E.; Finch, Deborah M., eds. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of

critical issues. New York: Oxford University Press: 311-353.

Sedgwick, James A.; Knopf, Fritz L. 1987. Breeding bird response to

cattle grazing of a cottonwood bottomland. Journal of Wildlife

Management. 51(1): 230-237.

Sedgwick, James A.; Knopf, Fritz L. 1991. Prescribed grazing as a

secondary impact in a western riparian floodplain. Journal of

Range Management. 44(4): 369-373.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. Final environmental impact statement: Beaverhead Forest Plan riparian amendment. Dillon, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Variously paged.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Upper Columbia

River Basin draft environmental impact statement. Volume 1.

Interior Columbia River Basin EIS Team. Boise, ID. Variously

paged.

Weaver, J. E.; Tomanek, G. W. 1951. Ecological studies in a midwestern range: the vegetation and effects of cattle on its composition and distribution. Nebraska Conservation Bulletin 31. 82 p.
6 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998
USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998 7

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does

not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or any product or service.
8 USDA Forest Service Res. Note RMRS-RN-5. 1998

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use

of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the

needs of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies,

public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and

individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526