National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

Logic-Based Approach to Evaluating Plant Communities

at Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2010/181

protecting the habitat of our heritage
ON THE COVER

Herbert Hoover birthplace cottage at Herbert Hoover NHS, prescribed fire at Tallgrass Prairie NPres, aquatic 

invertebrate monitoring at George Washington Carver NM, the Mississippi River at Effigy Mounds NM.
Logic-Based Approach to Evaluating Plant 

Communities at Effigy Mounds National Monument, 

Iowa

Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—2010/181

Kevin M. James and Michelle M. Guck

National Park Service

Heartland I&M Network 

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield

6424 West Farm Road 182

Republic, Missouri 65738
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure 

that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the 

intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received 

formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, 

analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par 

technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service.

This report is available from the Heartland I&M Network website 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/units/HTLN) and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM).

Please cite this publication as:

James, K. M. and M. M. Guck. 2010. Logic-based approach to evaluating plant communities at 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR—

2010/181. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 394/101351, March 2010
iii

Contents

Page

Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iv

Tables............................................................................................................................................. vi

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... vi

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods

Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 3

Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 10

Broad Outline......................................................................................................................... 11

Implementation Steps ............................................................................................................ 12

Logic Model Design .............................................................................................................. 14

Results

Overview................................................................................................................................ 19

Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 19

Dry Oak Forest ................................................................................................................. 21

White Oak-Chinquapin Oak Forest .................................................................................. 22

Maple-Basswood Forest ................................................................................................... 23

Central Tallgrass Prairie.................................................................................................. 24

Remnant Goat Prairie ...................................................................................................... 25

Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 33

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 337
iv

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Parks in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network with Effigy Mounds 

National Monument, Iowa indicated with red box ......................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network vegetation monitoring sites (n=29) 

and their associated community reference frame for Effigy Mounds National Monument, 

Iowa................................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3. Patches in the study area of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa........................ 5

Figure 4. Current condition community types as identified in the vegetation map....................... 6

Figure 5. Natural Resource Condition Assessment reference condition polygons for Effigy 

Mounds National Monument, Iowa ................................................................................................ 7

Figure 6. Vegetation patches in the study area of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa 

(n=297)............................................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 7. Dendrogram showing how community types within the study area are evaluated ...... 15

Figure 8. EMDS ramp function used to evaluate native species richness in the central 

tallgrass prairie community resource ............................................................................................ 16

Figure 9. EMDS ramp function used to evaluate density of size class 3 trees in the forested 

community resource...................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 10. Patch frequency of resource scores for the study area displayed by community 

type................................................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 11. Overall evaluation of fundamental resources for Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, Iowa .......................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 12. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall dry oak forest 

resource and its associated attributes............................................................................................ 22

Figure 13. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall white oak–

chinquapin oak forest resource and its associated attributes ....................................................... 23

Figure 14. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall maple-basswood

forest resource and its associated attributes.................................................................................. 24

Figure 15. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall central tallgrass 

prairie resource and its associated attributes................................................................................. 25

Figure 16. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall remnant goat 

prairie resource and its associated attributes................................................................................. 26
v

Figure 17. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for dry

oak forest type............................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 18. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for 

white oak-chinquapin oak forest type ........................................................................................... 28

Figure 19. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for 

maple-basswood forest type.......................................................................................................... 29

Figure 20. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for 

central tallgrass prairie type .......................................................................................................... 30

Figure 21. Overall evaluation for remnant goat prairie resource type ......................................... 31
vi

Tables 

Page

Table 1. Plant community codes, labels and related NVCS association used in the study............ 8

Table 2. Patch characteristics by resource type for the study area................................................. 9

Table 3. Diameter at breast height size class ranges for overstory trees...................................... 11

Table 4. Logic outline and reference conditions for dry oak community type ........................... 12

Table 5. Logic outline and reference conditions for white oak-chinquapin oak community 

type................................................................................................................................................ 13

Table 6. Logic outline and reference conditions for maple-basswood community type ............. 13

Table 7. Logic outline and reference conditions for central tallgrass prairie community type.... 14

Table 8. Logic outline and reference conditions for remnant goat prairie community type........ 14

Table 9. EMDS categories and their associated score range for reporting strength of 

evidence ....................................................................................................................................... 19
vii

Abstract

We present a logic model-based framework to evaluate the condition of multiple plant 

communities at Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. The logical framework for the 

analysis was based on plant community metrics collected as part of Heartland Inventory and 

Monitoring Network vegetation monitoring program. Monitoring site data were integrated with 

spatial data from both the USGS-NPS vegetation mapping project and NPS Natural Resource 

Condition Assessment conducted at the park. A new study area was developed that extended the 

area of inference from site based data to polygons on the landscape. The study area included all 

parts of the main unit of the park that corresponded to a particular community type for which 

monitoring data were available. Community indicators were logically related in a hierarchical 

framework according to informative attributes for each community. Monitoring data collected 

between 1998 and 2005 were used to develop reference conditions for each indicator. Monitoring 

data collected since 2005 served as input data for the evaluation. The logic model was executed 

in EMDS, a decision support system framework that operates within ArcGIS. Each element of 

the logic model was evaluated and scores were reported at the patch scale. Evaluation results are 

presented as a series of maps for all attributes of a community and as an overall evaluation of all 

community resources for the main unit of the park. Community and attribute improvement as 

measured against the initial monitoring period are presented at the study area scale. The logic 

model can be readily adapted to address management objectives or additional information. This 

work forms the foundation for conducting adaptive management within a decision support 

system.
viii

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Natural Resource Condition Assessment Program of the 

National Park Service’s Water Resources Division. Assistance from Ms. Guck was made 

possible by the Student Conservation Association internship program. 
1

Introduction

Hardwood forest and prairie communities have been altered over centuries by different land use 

requirements (Knopf and Samson 1997; Johnson et el. 2002; McShea and Healy 2002). For 

many National Park Service (NPS) units, communities in altered conditions existed prior to NPS 

status. For some parks, it is the very change in the landscape that warranted NPS designation, as 

is the case for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa (EFMO). The park represents nearly 

2000 years of mound building activity and associated human presence in the driftless area of 

northeastern Iowa along the Mississippi River. Beyond native uses, European settlement brought 

farming and extensive logging in the decades before the park’s inception in 1949 (O’Bright 

1989). The plant communities of the Paleozoic Plateau were replaced by agricultural practices 

and modified by logging, with only those areas unfit or inaccessible remaining in their more 

natural condition. However, fire management practices on federal land continued to alter and 

shape communities by disrupting the natural disturbance regime. For portions of those 

communities at EFMO that avoided plow and axe, their condition was altered through fire 

management (O’Bright 1989; Grabner et al. 2000).

To successfully manage natural resources two questions should be addressed: 1) what is the 

current condition of the resource to be managed and 2) what is the overall condition to achieve 

through managed actions? In 2003, with congressional approval and funding, the Natural 

Resource Condition Assessment (NRCA) program was established by the Water Resource 

Division of the NPS Natural Resource Program. Specifically the program is “a spatially explicit 

multi-disciplinary synthesis of existing scientific data and knowledge, from multiple sources, to 

help answer the question: what are the current conditions for important park natural resources?” 

(NRCA internal guidance 2009). Furthermore, NRCA outcomes are to be used to aid parks in 

developing condition-based management.

This project does not include any new field data collection but rather uses existing data sets. 

Primary input for this work is from the USGS-NPS vegetation mapping project for EFMO (Hop 

et al. 2005), Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network (HTLN) vegetation community 

monitoring project (DeBacker et al. 2004) and the 2008 natural resource condition assessment

for EFMO (unpublished report). Here the focus is on expanding the utility of site-based 

vegetation data to spatially address community attributes. 

This work integrates spatial and vegetation community monitoring data into a decision support 

system for evaluating the current condition of select plant communities at EFMO. We undertook 

this study with three primary objectives: 

1) Integrate descriptive data from the vegetation map and NRCA with vegetation 

community monitoring data.

2) Integrate HTLN vegetation community monitoring with the vegetation map to create an 

expanded reference frame.

3) Use the integrated data and spatial products to analyze the current condition of select 

plant communities using a logic-based approach.
2

The decision support system (DSS) consists of a logic model with a spatial evaluation and mapbased output. We evaluate five upland plant communities, three forested and two prairies, in the 

main unit of the park. For each community (resource) in the logic model, we evaluate the degree 

to which the condition is acceptable. In the logic model for forested resources, we evaluate the 

resource condition using four attributes: overstory structure, overstory composition, oak 

regeneration and understory structure. In the logic model for prairie resources, we evaluate the 

resource condition using three attributes: native species diversity, species composition and 

prairie structure. Each attribute has one or more indicators for which data are evaluated. The 

logic model shows the condition of each evaluated resource relative to an acceptable condition

range. The logic model and analysis are run using the EMDS (Reynolds et al. 2003) extension to 

ArcGIS.

Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) has been used in a number of different ways 

to address issues in environmental assessment and adaptive management (Reynolds 2006). In 

addition to its utility as a modeling framework (Reynolds 1999) some other applications include 

departure analysis of forest structure from reference conditions (Reynolds and Hessburg 2005);

evaluate fire danger and prioritize fuel treatments (Hessburg et al 2007); conduct watershed 

condition assessment (Jensen et al 2000); analysis and communication of monitoring data 

(Reynolds and Reeves 2003); landscape departure analysis (Gartner et al 2008); address 

suitability of conservation areas (Hope et al 2008); and environmental impact of road systems 

(Girvetz and Shilling 2003). Its use here as a logic-model framework for evaluating community 

condition is a basic application of EMDS and the first step toward performing adaptive 

management in EMDS.

We show that point data collected from fixed vegetation monitoring sites can be used with 

spatial vegetation community data to create a larger reference frame. The reference frame is the 

area to which site data can be inferred., For the study area, we construct a logical hierarchy of 

monitoring metrics that address characteristics at the community scale within the park. We 

demonstrate the use of this integrated system in a logic-model for the main unit of EFMO, 

focusing on 297 patches delineated by community type. 
3

Methods

Study Area

Effigy Mounds National Monument is located in northeast Iowa along the Mississippi River and 

contains hardwood and riparian forests and prairies (Fig. 1). Long term HTLN vegetation 

community monitoring began at EFMO in 1997 and currently consists of 29 sites in three 

different community types (Fig. 2). The main unit of the park that contains HTLN vegetation 

monitoring sites was selected as the study area for this modeling approach. The original HTLN 

reference frame was developed according to DeBacker et al (2004).

Figure 1. Parks in the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network with Effigy Mounds National 

Monument, Iowa indicated with red box.
4

Figure 2. Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network vegetation monitoring sites (n=29) and their 

associated community reference frame for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa.

For this logic model-based approach, the reference frame for each HTLN vegetation monitoring 

site was expanded throughout the upland areas of the main park unit (1022 ha). An initial set of 

451 patches in the main park unit form the foundation from which the study area is defined (Fig. 

3). The study area represents the most current spatial delineation of upland community types for

the main unit of the park. This work is focused on changes in the current condition of select 

upland communities at both the patch and landscape scale. The logic model is run independently 

for each patch in the study area and results are mapped individually and displayed by community 

type.
5

Figure 3. Patches in the study area of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa (n=451). Minimum patch 

size is 0.1 ha.

The study area was refined by identifying those patches that contained a vegetation monitoring 

site and then comparing the current community against the reference community type. Plant 

community descriptions follow the United States National Vegetation Classification System 

(NVCS) hierarchy (Grossman et al. 1998). Current community type refers to the 2005 vegetation 

map (Fig. 4). Reference community refers to the 2008 NRCA (Fig. 5).
6

Figure 4. Current condition community types as identified in the vegetation map for Effigy Mounds 

National Monument, Iowa.
7

Figure 5. Reference community types as identified in the Natural Resource Condition Assessment for 

Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa.

As part of the vegetation map, high quality and disturbed community type phases were described 

and mapped at the patch scale according to the classification hierarchy. Here high quality phases 

correspond to the reference type while disturbed phases represent a departure of the current type 

from the condition assessment. Plant communities in the study area represent associations, 

phases or formation levels in the NVCS classification hierarchy (Table 1). Classification level 

and community type were determined by the patches that contain vegetation monitoring sites and 

have been identified as communities of interest by the park and HTLN.
8

Table 1. Plant community codes, labels and related NVCS association used in the study. See Hop et al. 

(2005) for a complete description of the community types.

Code Resource NVCS classification

DO Dry Oak High quality phase of Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland and Forest

WO-CO White Oak-Chinquapin Oak High quality phase of Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland and Forest

MB Maple-Basswood Disturbed phases of Maple-Basswood Forest

CTP Central Tallgrass Prairie Central Tallgrass Prairie

RGP Remnant Goat Prairie Formation of Upland Shrubland and Herbaceous Vegetation

The 29 monitoring sites occurred in five community types identified by the vegetation map. All 

patches of the phase or formation for a community type were selected in the study area for 

analysis (Fig. 6).The refined study area is composed of 297 patches that total 577 ha (Table 2).
9

Figure 6. Vegetation patches in the study area of Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa (n=297). 

Minimum patch size is 0.1 ha.

Table 2. Patch characteristics by resource type for the study area.

Resource patch count total area (ha) mean patch size (SD)

Dry oak forest 86 236.2 2.8 (5.5)

White oak - Chinquapin oak 47 18.7 0.4 (0.4)

Maple - Basswood forest 155 297 1.9 (3.3)

Central Tallgrass Prairie 3 24.9 8.3 (5.4)

Remnant Goat Prairie 6 0.6 0.1 (0)
10

Data Sources

For each community type, a set of attributes and indicators was identified. Indicators refer to 

those characteristics of the community that are derived from vegetation monitoring data collected 

at the site scale and inferred to the study area (e.g. density of trees in size class 5). Attributes are 

those aspects of a community that combine one or more indicators (e.g. overstory structure) and 

address higher order community characteristics. For each indicator, a reference condition was 

assigned based on monitoring data collected between 1998 and 2005. Data up through 2005 were 

used to correspond to the community designations in the 2005 vegetation map. Here reference 

condition is the range of values that represent a lower and upper limit of measurements for a 

single indicator and applied to all patches of a community type. Reference condition ranges are 

indicator and community type specific.

The vegetation map is used to establish the spatial extent of the current plant community types. 

Thematic and community description accuracy assessments are an important component of the 

NPS Inventory and Monitoring Vegetation Mapping Project (NPS). Accuracy assessment entails 

validation and verification of map classes based on field sample data. Therefore mapped 

community classes on the vegetation map have been verified to meet accuracy standards. The 

spatial extent, community designation and accompanying description presented in the vegetation 

map provide all of the necessary components to cross walk HTLN point data to the spatial extent 

of the community.

Network data collected after 2005 serves as input data to assess the degree to which the current 

condition is acceptable for each indicator at the patch scale. Input data for those patches that 

contain an HTLN site comes directly from the monitoring data collected at that site. However for 

the majority of patches, the input data is the mean current indicator value as calculated from all 

monitoring sites within the community type for that indicator. Two assumptions are made to 

infer from site level data to individual patches at the park scale. The first assumption is that the 

range of variability captured for any variable across multiple sites and sampling times represents 

the range of variability of all similar areas on the park that have experienced a similar set of 

conditions (topo-edaphic, weather and/or management). The second assumption is that those 

similarities continue to hold through time, such that a mean value derived from all sites is a 

conservative estimate of input values for those patches whose condition is being inferred from 

site level data. Attributes and indicators are similar among forest and prairie types. The 

indicators refer to vegetation monitoring data collected according to HTLN protocol (see James 

et al. 2009). Forest community overstory attributes of structure and oak species regeneration are 

based on concepts of forest stand structure classes (Oliver and Larson 1996) and incorporate 

forest cover type from both the NVCS description of each forest type and the overstory 

compositional measure of relative basal area (Eyre 1980).

Attributes for forested communities are a combination of overstory (OS) structure, oak 

recruitment (Oak regen) and understory (US) structure. Overstory structure is evaluated for all 

tree species by diameter at breast height (dbh) size class (SC, Table 3). Basal area (BA) is 

calculated as m2

/ha for each size class. Density is the number of stems per hectare. Overstory 

volume (OS volume) and overstory density (OS density) are calculated for all three forested 

community types. Overstory composition is calculated for dry oak and maple-basswood 

community types only. It is evaluated based on the basal area of each species relative to the total 

basal area per hectare. The dry oak resources in the study area are all considered to be high 
11

quality phases while maple-basswood resources are disturbed phase types for their respective 

mapped NVCS association. The selected species reflect the dominant species in both phases for 

their respective community types. 

Table 3. Diameter at breast height (dbh, cm) size class ranges for overstory trees.

Size Class dbh (cm)

1 5 - 14.9

2 15 - 24.9

3 25 - 34.9

4 35 - 44.9

5 45+

Oak regeneration is summarized for all oak species seedlings and size class 1 stems. Here the 

focus is on the total amount of oak regeneration and recruitment rather than individual oak 

species. Furthermore, assessing oak regeneration across all upland forested areas of the park is of 

importance to the park, and therefore this attribute is not limited to only oak dominated 

resources. 

Forest understory structure and prairie structure are based on foliar cover of guild types within 

the community. Selected guild types and their associated measures of abundance provide insight 

into community dynamics such as native woody species recruitment or invasive species 

encroachment. 

Prairie diversity reflects the community’s species richness along with their abundance as 

measured by foliar cover. Here two common measures of species diversity have been rescaled in 

order to aid interpretation alongside species richness counts. Both Shannon diversity index and 

Simpson’s index have been converted to report diversity as the number of species the community 

would have if all species occurred in equal abundance (see Jost 2006 and James et al 2009 for 

background and implementation, respectively). Low diversity counts relative to species richness 

reflect dominance of a few species while high species counts indicate that most species occur in 

near equal abundance. Here species diversity measures are calculated for only native species.

Non-native or invasive species do not contribute to the natural or referenced community 

diversity. However, they do detract from the community and are considered as part of the overall 

species composition assessment. Historically and ideally, the number of exotic species would be 

zero, thus resulting in pre-European community composition and diversity levels. Here the focus 

is on native species richness and how evenly they are dispersed within the community while 

considering presence of exotic species. 

Indicators based on HTLN monitoring metrics provide the foundation for continued reassessment of the current condition as well as refinement of the reference condition such that the 

most up-to-date information is included in the logic model.

Broad Outline

The condition of a subset of plant communities is evaluated in the main unit of the park. We 

show how plant community characteristics can be evaluated for a range of conditions using a 

logic model-based approach in a decision support system. Model evaluation scores are used to 
12

determine community condition. For individual patch evaluations, the degree to which an 

indicator meets or exceeds a value is scored. Resource improvement of a single community or at 

the park scale is inferred when more than 50% of the evaluation scores exceed 0.5.

Implementation Steps 

Spatial assessment and quantitative monitoring data were used to extend the area of inference 

from HTLN vegetation monitoring sites to plant communities at the park scale. Reference 

conditions were defined for measurable characteristics of each of the five community types 

derived from HTLN monitoring data and applied to the patches of the current vegetation 

condition as identified in the vegetation map. A logic model was constructed within the EMDS 

modeling system to demonstrate how all indicators contribute to the overall evaluation of the 

community type and study area. Each patch within a community was evaluated for evidence of 

being within the reference condition for the resource type. Fundamental resources of the logic 

model represent the community type, which are composed of attributes and indicators with the 

latter being the lowest level in the model for which data are evaluated. A logic outline for each 

resource in the study area is presented in Tables 4 – 8.

Table 4. Logic outline and reference conditions for dry oak community type (DO resource).

Resource Attribute Indicator Indicator-2 Proposition Reference

DO Dry oak type is in acceptable condition

(union) Canopy cover Forest canopy cover is acceptable ≥ 60

OS Structure Overstory structure is acceptable

(union) OS volume Overstory volume of all tree species is acceptable

(+) SC 2 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 2 is acceptable .90 - 1.21

SC 3 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 3 is acceptable 1.25 - 2.48 - 7.02 - 9.5

SC 4 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 4 is acceptable 3.54 - 11.56

SC 5 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 5 is acceptable 2.33 - 27.52

OS density Overstory density of all tree species is acceptable

(+) SC 2 density Density of all tree species in size class 2 is acceptable 27 - 40 - 145 - 173

SC 3 density Density of all tree species in size class 3 is acceptable 17 - 33 - 100 - 146

SC 4 density Density of all tree species in size class 4 is acceptable 27 - 93

SC 5 density Density of all tree species in size class 5 is acceptable 10 - 110

OS composition

(+) AcerSacc Relative basal area of Acer saccharum is acceptable .01 - .46

TiliAmer Relative basal area of Tilia americana is acceptable .002 - .43

Carya spp Relative basal area of Carya species is acceptable .001 - .20

QuerAlba Relative basal area of Quercus alba is acceptable .001 - .61

QuerRubr Relative basal area of Quercus rubra is acceptable .114 - .71

QuerMacr Relative basal area of Quercus macrocarpa is acceptable .51 - .55

Oak regeneration Oak regeneration is acceptable

(union) Oak seedling RD Relative density of oak seedlings is acceptable .001 - .111

Oak SC 1 RD Relative density of oak trees in size class 1 is acceptable .001 - .514

US structure Understory guild representation is acceptable

(union)

native grass Foliar cover of native grass is acceptable .05 - 3.3

native forbs Foliar cover of native forbs is acceptable 4.7 - 55.9

native grass-like Foliar cover of native grass-like species is acceptable .05 - 17.5

fern Foliar cover of fern species is acceptable .05 - 3.1

native woody Foliar cover of native woody species is acceptable 12.4 - .4

non-native Foliar cover of non-native species is acceptable 7.2 - .1
13

Table 5. Logic outline and reference conditions for white oak-chinquapin oak community type (WO-CO 

resource).

Table 6. Logic outline and reference conditions for maple-basswood community type (MB resource).

Resource Attribute Indicator Indicator-2 Proposition Reference

WO-CO White oak-Chinquapin oak type is in acceptable condition

(union) Canopy cover Forest canopy cover is acceptable ≥ 25

OS Structure Overstory structure is acceptable

(union) OS volume Overstory volume of all tree species is acceptable

(+) SC 2 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 2 is acceptable 1.47 - 1.89 - 5.25 - 6.64

SC 3 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 3 is acceptable 3.37 - 5.44 - 8.71 - 11.63

SC 4 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 4 is acceptable 1.26 - 13.37

SC 5 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 5 is acceptable 1 - 16.79

OS density Overstory density of all tree species is acceptable

(+) SC 2 density Density of all tree species in size class 2 is acceptable 41 - 65 - 165 - 228

SC 3 density Density of all tree species in size class 3 is acceptable 50 - 80 - 128 - 159

SC 4 density Density of all tree species in size class 4 is acceptable 11 - 109

SC 5 density Density of all tree species in size class 5 is acceptable 1.0 - 89

Oak regeneration Oak regeneration is acceptable

(union) Oak seedling RD Relative density of oak seedlings is acceptable .001 - .442

Oak SC 1 RD Relative density of oak trees in size class 1 is acceptable .001 - .469

Diversity Understory native species diversity is acceptable

(union) Shannon diversity Shannon number of native species is acceptable 29.3 - 52.1

Simpson diversity Simpson number of native species is acceptable 15.4 - 29.9

Composition Species composition is acceptable

(union) evenness Native evenness is acceptable .787 - .925

native species Number of native species is acceptable 56 - 79

exotic species Number of exotic species is acceptable 9.0 - 2.0

Structure Understory guild representation is acceptable

(union) native grass Foliar cover of native grass is acceptable .5 - 8

native forbs Foliar cover of native forbs is acceptable 3.2 - 19.7

native grass-like Foliar cover of native grass-like species is acceptable .3 - 7.8

fern Foliar cover of fern species is acceptable .05 - .3

native woody Foliar cover of native woody species is acceptable 6.2 - 0.2

non-native Foliar cover of non-native species is acceptable 4.6 - 0.1

Resource Attribute Indicator Indicator-2 Proposition Reference

MB Maple-Basswood forest type is in acceptable condition

(union) Canopy cover Forest canopy cover is acceptable ≥ 60

OS Structure Overstory structure is acceptable

(union) OS volume Overstory volume of all tree species is acceptable

(+) SC 2 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 2 is acceptable 3.34 - 4.08 - 6.55 - 7.23

SC 3 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 3 is acceptable 6.81 - 6.91 - 9.29 - 9.85

SC 4 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 4 is acceptable 4.57 - 11.09

SC 5 BA Basal area of all tree species in size class 5 is acceptable .001 - 5.19

OS density Overstory density of all tree species is acceptable

(+) SC 2 density Density of all tree species in size class 2 is acceptable 100 - 145 - 205 - 220

SC 3 density Density of all tree species in size class 3 is acceptable 100 - 120 - 140 - 150

SC 4 density Density of all tree species in size class 4 is acceptable 40 - 90

SC 5 density Density of all tree species in size class 5 is acceptable 1.0 - 20.0

OS composition

(+) AcerSacc Relative basal area of Acer saccharum is acceptable .005 - .042

TiliAmer Relative basal area of Tilia americana is acceptable .018 - .137

Carya spp Relative basal area of Carya species is acceptable .113 - .379

QuerAlba Relative basal area of Quercus alba is acceptable .001 - .123

QuerRubr Relative basal area of Quercus rubra is acceptable .022 - .078

Oak regeneration Oak regeneration is acceptable

(union) Oak seedling RD Relative density of oak seedlings is acceptable .001 - .012

Oak SC 1 RD Relative density of oak trees in size class 1 is acceptable .001 - .057

US structure Understory guild representation is acceptable

(union)

native forbs Foliar cover of native forbs is acceptable 8.2 - 15

native grass-like Foliar cover of native grass-like species is acceptable .1 - 1.5

fern Foliar cover of fern species is acceptable .5 - 6

native woody Foliar cover of native woody species is acceptable 7 - 3.2

non-native Foliar cover of non-native species is acceptable .6 - .1
14

Table 7. Logic outline and reference conditions for central tallgrass prairie community type (CTP 

resource).

Table 8. Logic outline and reference conditions for remnant goat prairie community type (RGP resource).

Attribute and indicator selection was restricted to those variables or metrics that could be 

summarized from HTLN vegetation monitoring data. Forest attributes were chosen that reflect 

aspects of forest stand structure and development. Emphasis is placed on oak regeneration for 

each forested resource. Oak regeneration is a management concern at the park and its inclusion 

as an attribute of each forest resource provides park-wide information about the degree of oak 

regeneration and recruitment that occurs. Canopy cover is used simply to make a distinction 

between woodland/forests and savannah/prairie resources; this is reflected in the reference 

threshold rather than reference range. Prairie/understory attributes and indicators compare native 

species against exotic species in terms of composition and abundance (as measured by foliar 

cover).

Logic Model Design

The logic model for evaluating the study area and its associated resources was graphically 

designed with NetWeaver Developer (Rules of Thumb, Inc., North East, PA). A representation 

of the top levels of the logic model is presented to illustrate the relationship among resources and 

attributes within resource type (Fig. 7). Below the attribute level are indicators (see Table 4 - 8 

for indicators by resource attribute).

Resource Attribute Indicator Proposition Reference

CTP Central tallgrass prairie type is in acceptable condition

(union) Diversity Understory native species diversity is acceptable

(union) Shannon diversity Shannon number of native species is acceptable 8.1 - 27.6

Simpson diversity Simpson number of native species is acceptable 3.5 - 11.1

Composition Species composition is acceptable

(union) evenness Native evenness is acceptable .564 - .764

native species Number of native species is acceptable 36 - 77

exotic species Number of exotic species is acceptable 10.0 - 4.0

Structure Understory guild representation is acceptable

(union) native grass Foliar cover of native grass is acceptable 21.4 - 85.7

native forbs Foliar cover of native forbs is acceptable 20.2 - 72.7

native grass-like Foliar cover of native grass-like species is acceptable .1 - 2.7

native woody Foliar cover of native woody species is acceptable 15.8 - 3.5

non-native Foliar cover of non-native species is acceptable 20.9 - 1

Resource Attribute Indicator Proposition Reference

RGP Remnant goat prairie type is in acceptable condition

(union) Diversity Understory native species diversity is acceptable

(union) Shannon diversity Shannon number of native species is acceptable 32.8 - 47.1

Simpson diversity Simpson number of native species is acceptable 11.1 - 23.2

Composition Species composition is acceptable

(union) evenness Native evenness is acceptable .784 - .83

native species Number of native species is acceptable 84 - 104

exotic species Number of exotic species is acceptable 7.0 - 4.0

Structure Understory guild representation is acceptable

(union) native grass Foliar cover of native grass is acceptable 7 - 17.8

native forbs Foliar cover of native forbs is acceptable 14 - 36.3

native grass-like Foliar cover of native grass-like species is acceptable .6 - 6.6

fern Foliar cover of fern species is acceptable 4.4 - 9

native woody Foliar cover of native woody species is acceptable 8.5 - 6.6

non-native Foliar cover of non-native species is acceptable 4.6 - 1.1
15

Figure 7. Dendrogram showing how community types within the study area are evaluated. The complete 

evaluation of each resource is based on the evaluation of attributes displayed.

Indicators, attributes and resources are evaluated at their next higher level in the model according 

to logical operators. These operators reflect the logical relationship within levels and how each 

topic contributes to the evaluation of the resource condition. For each resource and attribute, the 

logical operator is presented in parentheses (Table 4 - 8). Model topics joined by the union

operator incrementally contribute to the overall evaluation of the next higher level of the model 

(e.g. attributes are joined by a union operator to evaluate the community). Because of the union 

operator, low support for one attribute can be offset by full support from other attributes.

In some cases, attributes are composed of indicators related by a mathematical operator (+). This 

type of operator adds all of the evaluation scores for each indicator together and passes the 

resulting value to the attribute for higher level evaluation in the logical hierarchy.

For each topic in the model (from study area to resource down to indicator) an evaluation 

proposition is stated. The proposition defines what is being evaluated at that level in the model 

(e.g. native species richness or size class 3 density) and always tests for a model topic being 

acceptable. Full support (strength of evidence = 1.0) for the proposition that native species 

richness is acceptable in the Central Tallgrass Prairie community is determined by comparing the 

current input value against the reference condition (Fig. 8). The reference condition is the 

evaluation ramp function in EMDS. The ramp function indicates that native species richness of 

77 species or greater provides full support for the proposition while 36 or fewer native species 

provides no support (zero strength of evidence) for the condition being acceptable. The value 36 

is the lower bound of the 80% median range of native species richness reference range in Central 

Tallgrass Prairie communities of the main unit of the park. The value 77 is the upper bound of 

the 80% median range for the indicator, all at the patch scale. This is the most common 
16

evaluation ramp function used in the analysis. All indicators with a reference composed of a 

range between two values have this type of ramp function and subsequent analysis is similar to 

native species richness (Fig. 8). Further, the reference ranges represents the 80% median range of 

values for data collected between 1998 and 2005. 

Figure 8. EMDS ramp function used to evaluate native species richness in the Central Tallgrass Prairie 

community resource.

Ramp functions reflect the type of evaluation required to assess the specific indicator and are 

based on ecological understanding of the underlying data being evaluated. For certain aspects of 

forest stand structure (i.e. density of size class 3 trees), too much or too little density may be 

unacceptable for the community (Fig. 9). For this size class of overstory trees, a middle range of 

density best reflects the acceptable condition of overstory density for the dry oak community. 

Figure 9. EMDS ramp function used to evaluate density of size class 3 trees in the forested community 

resource.
17

Indicators with reference values and associated ramp functions similar to SC 3 density (Fig. 9) 

represent the idea that more is not always better. For these indicators, an optimum range of 

values have been identified. The optimum range (full support, strength of evidence is 1.0) is the 

25% median range of data collected between 1998 and 2005. Above the 90% range or below the 

10% median range, there is no support for the proposition (strength of evidence is zero). In 

Tables 4- 8, reference ranges with four values are of this type of evaluation ramp function in 

EMDS.

The complete logic model for evaluating the current condition of plant communities of interest 

represents one possible logical interpretation of community structure and composition. The study 

area and all lower levels in the hierarchy can be modified to include new management objectives 

or logical relationships. The flexibility of the model means that any topic can be removed or 

added and most importantly, reference conditions can be updated throughout the adaptive 

management process. Community level evaluation at the patch scale was conducted using the 

NetWeaver logic engine (Miller and Saunders 2002) in EMDS (Reynolds et al. 2003). 

19

Results

Overview

Results are reported as scores and reflect strength of evidence for the proposition. Evaluation 

scores range in value from 0 to 1.0. A score closer to 1.0 indicates a greater degree of support for 

the proposition (indicator exceeds a certain level or resource condition is acceptable); while a 

value of zero indicates no support for the proposition. The degree to which a proposition is 

neither fully supported nor not supported is assigned as well. Incomplete support is reported in 

four categories (very low to strong support for the proposition). Again propositions are expressed 

to evaluate the degree to which the condition is acceptable. Patch evaluations are produced at the 

indicator, attribute and resource levels of the logic model. The evaluation score is presented as 

color coded categories on the mapped output from EMDS at the patch scale (Table. 9).

Table 9. EMDS categories and their associated score range for reporting strength of evidence.

Color Category Score

No support 0

Very low 0.1-0.25

Low 0.26-0.50

Moderate 0.51-0.75

Strong 0.76-0.99

Full support 1

Community wide results are based on the frequency of patch evaluation scores. For each 

resource and its associated attributes, improvement in the current condition over the recent 

monitoring period is inferred if 50% of the patches have evaluation scores greater than 0.5. 

These results are presented as a series of frequency histograms for each resource and its 

attributes.

Study Area

The dry oak and maple-basswood forests are the dominant types in the study area, accounting for 

81% of all patches and 92% of the total study area. The majority of HTLN vegetation monitoring 

sites are located in high quality phases of the dry oak association and disturbed phases of the 

maple-basswood association. For these community types, the study area is composed of high 

quality oak phase patches and disturbed maple-basswood phase patches identified in the 

vegetation map. The remaining resource types for the study area are unique community types of 

interest that include sites. Comparing the study area to the condition assessment highlights those 

areas of the dry-oak forest that agree with the NRCA. Conversely, disturbed maple-basswood 

patches indicate where the current type departs from the condition assessment (either high 

quality maple-basswood or oak hardwood forest types). 

Improvement of the resource condition is a measure of the indicator changes that have recently 

occurred (since 2005). Moreover, it reflects the recent change in the current condition during the 

period of HTLN monitoring. Overall condition of the study area has improved as inferred from 

97% of the patches having resource evaluation scores above 0.5 (Fig. 10). Nearly all of the 
20

resource within the study area have improved with the exception of the remnant goat prairie 

community.

Figure 10. Patch frequency of resource scores for the study area displayed by community type.

Resources are central tallgrass prairie (CTP), dry oak forest (DO), maple-basswood forest (MB), remnant 

goat prairie (RGP) and white oak-chinquapin oak forest (WOCO).

EMDS results for the study area indicate not only the overall resource condition but where on the 

landscape the condition has changed (Fig. 11). Composite evaluation maps for each resource and 

their attributes are presented below (Fig. 17–21).

WOCO

RGP

MB

DO

CTP

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Score

0

50

100

150

200

Patch count
21

Figure 11. Overall evaluation of fundamental resources for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa.

Dry oak forest

The high quality dry oak community condition improved during the monitoring period with 97% 

of the patches having overall evaluation scores above 0.5 (Fig. 12, Dry Oak). Very low to no 

support for oak regeneration and recruitment is the primary contributor to the overall moderate 

evaluation scores for the dry oak patches (Fig. 12, Oak regen). Overstory structure shows mixed 

results among patches with some large patches in the southern portion of the main unit having 

strong support for the proposition being acceptable (Fig. 17). These same large patches have low 

support for acceptable understory, along with another large patch nearby (Fig. 17). 
22

Figure 12. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall dry oak forest resource and its 

associated attributes. Each attribute contributes equally to the resource evaluation. 

White oak-Chinquapin oak forest

The white oak-chinquapin oak forest type does not occupy a large area or number of patches in 

the study area (19.0 ha and 48 patches, respectively; Table 1). This phase was identified because 

it encompasses the oak savannah communities of interest by both the park and HTLN. The 

resource has improved since the period of initial monitoring with 98% of patches having overall 

scores > 0.5 (Fig. 13, white oak-chinquapin oak). Similar to the dry oak community, oak 

regeneration has decreased across the resource (Fig. 13, oak regen). Overstory structure has 

improved while the understory remains stable (Fig. 13). A single patch in the northwest portion 

of the study area has low overall support while the remaining patches have moderate. That same 

patch has very low support for acceptable overstory structure and low support for acceptable 

understory structure (Fig. 18). 

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Score

0

30

60

90

Patch count

Oak regen

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Score

0

30

60

90

Patch count

OS structure

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Score

0

30

60

90

Patch count

Dry Oak

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Score

0

30

60

90

Patch count

Understory
23

Figure 13. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall white oak–chinquapin oak

resource and its associated attributes. Each attribute contributes equally to the resource evaluation. 

Maple-basswood forest

Disturbed maple-basswood patches dominate the study area (n=155). These areas are identified 

in the vegetation map as being either disturbed types of maple-basswood forest or former oak 

hardwood forest. The current condition of the maple-basswood forest has improved (Fig. 14, 

maple-basswood). While the understory condition remains stable, the condition of both the 

overstory structure and oak regeneration has improved (Fig. 14). For most patches, the overstory 

structure and oak regeneration attributes have moderate to strong support for the proposition 

(Fig. 19). Only two patches show no support for acceptable oak regeneration (Fig. 19).

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

10

20

30

40

50

Patch count

Oak regen

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

10

20

30

40

50

Patch count

OS structure

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

10

20

30

40

50

Patch count

Understory

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

10

20

30

40

50

Patch count

White oak-Chinquapin oak
24

Figure 14. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall maple-basswood forest 

resource and its associated attributes. Each attribute contributes equally to the resource evaluation. 

Central Tallgrass Prairie

This resource type only occupies three patches across the study area. However both the 

vegetation map and condition assessment identified this community in their analyses, with the 

later relating it to the spatial extent of the dry oak forests. Overall the community has remained

stable (Fig. 15). Diversity and composition remained stable while structure is slightly lower since 

the initial monitoring period (Fig. 15). Species diversity and composition have the same spatial 

pattern of support for prairie patches as does the overall condition evaluation for the central 

tallgrass prairie (CTP) resource (Fig. 20). There is low support for the proposition that prairie 

structure is acceptable. The three patches of CTP represent the prairie restoration efforts of the 

park.

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

40

80

120

160

Patch count

Oak regen

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

40

80

120

160

Patch count

OS structure

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

40

80

120

160

Patch count

Maple-basswood

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Score

0

40

80

120

160

Patch count

Understory
25

Figure 15. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall central tallgrass prairie 

resource and its associated attributes. Each attribute contributes equally to the resource evaluation. 

Remnant Goat Prairie

Results for the six small patches of remnant goat prairie are based on data from a single HTLN 

vegetation monitoring site. Each patch is 0.1 ha in size, equivalent to the area covered by a 

HTLN vegetation monitoring site. Therefore monitoring data is being inferred to the five 

additional patches of remnant goat prairie in the study area. For this reason, all six patches have 

the same results. For the remnant goat prairie resource, overall condition has not improved (Fig. 

16). Figure 21 shows an expanded view of the RGP patches in the study area with the evaluation 

of the overall resource being shown. There is no support for the proposition that species diversity 

is acceptable for all patches. There is low support for species composition evaluation and 

moderate support for structure evaluation. Combined the attributes provide overall low strength 

of evidence that the current condition is acceptable for remnant goat prairie patches. 

0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Score

0

1

2

3

Patch count

Composition

0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Score

0

1

2

3

Patch count

Diversity

0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Score

0

1

2

3

Patch count

Central Tallgrass Prairie

0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Score

0

1

2

3

Patch count

Structure
26

Figure 16. Patch frequency of evaluation score histograms for the overall remnant goat prairie resource 

and its associated attributes. Each attribute contributes equally to the resource evaluation. 

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Score

0

2

4

6

8

Patch count

Composition

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Score

0

2

4

6

8

Patch count

Diversity

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Score

0

2

4

6

8

Patch count

Remnant Goat Prairie

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Score

0

2

4

6

8

Patch count

Structure
27

Figure 17. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for dry oak forest type.
28

Figure 18. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for white oak-chinquapin oak forest type.
29

Figure 19. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for maple-basswood forest type.
30

Figure 20. Composite of attribute evaluations contributing to the overall evaluation for central tallgrass prairie type.
31

Figure 21. Overall evaluation for remnant goat prairie resource type.

33

Discussion

The focus of this work was to: 1) utilize additional spatial data to extend the reference frame of 

monitoring site data to include larger areas of the park; 2) use monitoring site data to design a 

logical framework at the community scale; and 3) apply the logical framework to a spatially 

explicit evaluation of the current condition for each community in the new study area. 

The HTLN reference frame for the 29 vegetation community monitoring sites was expanded to 

include the main unit of EFMO. Integrating fine scale monitoring site data with larger scale 

community descriptions and spatial data allowed site data to be extrapolated to a larger area of 

the park. The original HTLN reference frame was expanded to include five community types of 

interest to the park. Based on site level data, a set of indicators were selected for the logical 

framework. Limiting the set of indicators to those derived from HTLN data simplified the logical 

framework for characterizing each community type.

Input and reference conditions for this work were based on a small number of monitoring sites as 

compared to the study area and represent a narrow monitoring time frame. However limited 

sample size and sample years do not detract from the utility of the methods. As more complete 

spatial and descriptive information becomes available and/or management objectives are 

quantified both the input and reference conditions can be refined without redesigning the logic 

model or study area maps. The flexibility inherent in the logical framework allows for multiple 

management options to be explored. Furthermore, the spatial presentation of results allows for 

“on-the-ground” visualization of how each scenario will be distributed across the study area. 

Dry oak forest

Patches of dry oak forest type represent the high quality phases of the Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland 

and Forest association. The set of reference conditions for this resource type was based on data 

from fourteen monitoring sites. Even though the current overstory structure reflects high quality 

oak-hickory forests, there is very little oak regeneration or recruitment being detected. One 

possible interpretation is that the current overstory was established under conditions that reflect a 

disturbance regime that promoted the development of the oak-hickory forest and over time, the 

disturbance regime was altered such that it inhibited oak regeneration. Regardless of the 

mechanism that lead to the current condition, as the overstory trees begin to die, they will not be 

replaced by oak species. This lack of oak regeneration points to areas on the park where the 

cover type will shift away from being oak dominated as succession occurs. 

White oak-Chinquapin oak forest

This resource type is a special case of the Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland and Forest association and 

was delineated based on the interest in oak savannah communities in the park. Reference 

conditions for the 48 patches were summarized from six monitoring sites. Unlike the dry oak 

forest patches, oak regeneration was detected, but with only low strength of evidence. Further the 

condition of oak regeneration has declined within the community. The white oak-chinquapin oak 

forest resource type has improved slightly since the initial monitoring period.
34

Maple-basswood forest

All 155 patches of the maple-basswood forest resource reflect disturbed phases of the 

association. The reference conditions were derived from summarized data from five monitoring 

sites. Most notable about this evaluation is the spatial extent of this resource. In the main unit of 

the park, it accounts for 51% of the total study area. Both the amount of maple-basswood forest 

and its arrangement in the park could have management implications insofar as efforts to restore 

oak dominated forests to the main unit of the park. The maple-basswood resource appears to be 

in recovery from large scale disturbance (logging) or in transition away from a maple-basswood 

type. The latter is reflected in the moderate support for oak regeneration detected. For this 

resource, management actions could be taken to either restore high quality phases of the maplebasswood forest association type or replace it with oak dominated association. 

Central Tallgrass Prairie

Patches of central tallgrass prairie reflect the restoration efforts of the park. The low to moderate 

support at the attribute level suggest that prairie restoration has remained stable in terms of 

native species diversity, number of invasive species and guild representation and abundance. For 

this type, the logical framework and subsequent analysis acts more to evaluate the degree to 

which the area has been restored rather than the departure from a pre-European condition. The 

difference between the two types of evaluation is reflected in the reference conditions. Here the 

reference condition is derived from data collected following restoration and therefore reflect the 

state of the restoration. If the reference conditions were based on historical or pre-European 

values then the degree of departure of the current condition from the historic condition would be 

analyzed.

Remnant Goat Prairie

The lack of support for native species diversity is most pronounced in the remnant goat prairie 

evaluation. We can look to the other attributes for more information regarding the loss of native 

species diversity. Low support for species composition indicates that there is not a corresponding 

decrease in native species richness or a rise in the number of invasive species. Furthermore, 

moderate support for guild structure shows that native guild representation has remained stable 

over time. Therefore the lack of native species diversity might be the result of a decrease in foliar 

cover of previously abundant species rather than a loss of numerous native species.

Overall conclusions

A logical framework was constructed using HTLN vital signs data and spatial datasets to 

successfully evaluate the current state of five vegetation communities in the main unit of EFMO. 

This work demonstrates how numerous indicators and attributes can be logically related based on 

their ecological information in a community. Furthermore, a spatially explicit method was 

employed to present integrated results both among resource types and within the logical 

hierarchy of each resource type. 

For all communities evaluated in the study area, oak regeneration and recruitment is a concern. 

Since results are mapped at the patch scale, areas of strong support can be located and 

investigated in order to assist those areas with very low support, not only for the oak 

regeneration attribute, but for any set of indicators. This highlights areas where the condition is 

supported (requiring one type of management) and areas where the same condition is not 

supported, thus requiring a different management approach for the same indicator. By logically 
35

arranging indicators in a community based hierarchy and spatially evaluating each level of the 

analysis, multiple aspects of natural resources can be investigated and mapped. 

The EMDS modeling framework can be separated into two components: 1) the evaluation 

approach that uses a logic engine to reason about multi-faceted ecosystem components and 2) the 

decision component which uses a decision engine to determine management priorities (Reynolds 

2006). Integrating these key features within EMDS provides an explicit two-phase system for 

transparent adaptive management (Reynolds 2005). Here only the first component (evaluation 

phase) of EMDS was presented. Refining reference conditions or the reference frame would be 

the next step toward modeling adaptive management within the EMDS framework. 

This application can be extended to include formal decision criteria and scenarios. Using the 

same knowledge-based approach, logical criteria can be formulated to address specific 

management decisions. For the case of EFMO, in which significant cultural resources (effigy 

mounds) exist within the natural resources, decision criteria may be developed that address forest 

structural changes in those patches containing mounds within a certain distance of visitor trails. 

Those patches containing mounds near trails would be identified as having a greater management 

priority than a patch not containing mounds, when both patches have the same evaluation score 

for overstory structure. This is only one example of applying decision criteria in the EMDS 

framework to facilitate natural resource management in areas with significant cultural resources.

With the implementation of natural resource condition assessment program, defining reference 

conditions and evaluating the degree of departure of current conditions from those reference 

conditions has increased in priority. Logic model frameworks, such as EMDS can aid in 

interpreting condition assessments at multiple spatial and community scales. The flexibility, 

transparency and level of detail of documentation that goes into developing logic models can 

help to minimize subjectivity among science, management and policy.

37

Literature Cited

DeBacker, M. D., A. N. Sasseen, C. Becker, G. A. Rowell, L. P. Thomas, J. R. Boetsch, and 

G. D. Wilson. 2004. Vegetation Community monitoring protocol for the Heartland I&M 

Network and Prairie Cluster Prototype Monitoring Program. National Park Service, 

Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network and Prairie Cluster Prototype Monitoring 

Program, Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield, Republic, Missouri. 

Gärtner, S., K. M. Reynolds, P. F. Hessburg, S. Hummel, and M. Twery. 2008. Decision support 

for evaluating landscape departure and prioritizing forest management activities in a 

changing environment. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1666-1676.

Girvetz, E., and F. Shilling. 2003. Decision support for road system analysis and modification on 

the Tahoe National Forest. Environmental Management 32:218-233.

Grabner, K. W., S. E. Jenkins, and M. DeBacker. 2000. Goat Prairie 14 (Burr Oak Savanna) and 

Marching Bear Mounds management recommendations. US Geological Survey, 

Missouri. Unpublished report to the National Park Service.

Grossman D. H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. S. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R.

Crawford, K. Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K. D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L.

Sneddon. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial 

vegetation of the United States. Volume I, The National Vegetation Classification 

System: development, status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, 

Virginia.

Hessburg, P. F., K. M. Reynolds, R. E. Keane, K. M. James, and R. B. Salter. 2007. Evaluating 

wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management 247:1-17.

Hop, K., S. Lubinski, and S. Menard. 2005. USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program: Effigy 

Mounds National Monument, Iowa. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest 

Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Humphries, H. C., P. S. Bourgeron, and K. M. Reynolds. 2008. Suitability for conservation as a 

criterion in regional conservation network selection. Biodiversity and Conservation 

17:467-492.

James, K. M., M. D. DeBacker, G. A. Rowell, J. L. Haack, and L. W. Morrison. 2009. 

Vegetation community monitoring protocol for the Heartland Inventory and Monitoring 

Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRR — 2009/141. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Jensen, M. E., K. Reynolds, J. Andreasen, and I. A. Goodman. 2000. A knowledge-based 

approach to the assessment of watershed condition. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 64:271-283.
38

Johnson, P. S., S. R. Shifley, and R. Rogers. 2002. The ecology and silviculture of oaks. CABI, 

New York.

Jost, L. 2006. Entropy and divesity. Oikos 113:2.

Knopf, F. L., and F. B. Samson. 1997. Conservation of grassland vertebrates. Pages 273-290 in

F. L. Knopf and F. B. Samson, editors. Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains 

Vertebrates. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

McShea, W. J., and W. M. Healy. 2002. Oak Forest Ecosystems: Ecology and Management for 

Wildlife. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Miller, B. J., and M. C. Saunders. 2002. The NetWeaver reference manual. Pennsylvania State 

University, College Park, Pennsylvania.

National Park Service (NPS). Vegetation Inventory. Online. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/veg). Accessed 13 January 2010.

O’Bright, J. Y. 1989. The Perpetual March: an administrative history of Effigy Mounds National 

Monument. Online. (http://www.nps.gov/archive/efmo/web/adhi.htm). Accessed 3 

December 2009. 

Reynolds, K. M. 1999. EMDS users guide (version 2.0): knowledge-based decision support for 

ecological support for ecological assessment. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-470. 

U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Reynolds, K. M. 2005. Integrated decision support for sustainable forest management in the 

United States: fact or fiction? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49:6-23.

Reynolds, K. M. 2006. EMDS 3.0: A modeling framework for coping with complexity in 

environmental assessment and planning. Science in China Series E: Technological 

Sciences 49:63-75.

Reynolds, K. M., and G. H. Reeves. 2003. Role of knowledge-based systems in analysis and 

communication of monitoring data. Pages 189-210 in D. E. Busch and J. C. Trexler, 

editors. Monitoring Ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional 

iniatives. Island Press. Washington, District of Columbia.

Reynolds, K.M., and P.F. Hessubrg. 2005. Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation 

and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management 207:263-278.

Reynolds, K. M., S. Rodriguez, and K. Bevans. 2003. User guide for the Ecosystem 

Management Decision Support System, Version 3.0. Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Redlands, California.
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities.

NPS 394/101351, March, 2010
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM