Terrestrial Riparian Veget

Monitoring

with links to other ecosystem comp

Mike Kearsley --- Northern Arizona Univer

CollaD. LigH. YarS. BraN. CoG. CaJ. Fre
Conceptual Model of Terrestrial Riparian 

Hydrograph

Terrestrial 

Vegetation

Invertebrates

Herpetofauna

M

Breeding 

Birds

Dam 

Operations

Tributary 

Flows Soil Qua
Two Types of Data Collect

• “Habitat” Data

– Integrated Monitoring Sites– Bird Survey Sites

• Vegetation Dynamics Data

– STARS / GUI Model Cross-Sections– Transects
Sampling Guidelines

• Use probabilistic sample site selectio

– Minimize effects of “expert” judgement

• Maximize number of sites visited

– Increase statistical power

• Reduce site impacts

– Limit frequency of visits to same sites

• Tied to stressors (physical processe

– Flows, geomorphology, substrate
Site Selection for “Habitat” Me

• GIS-based vegetation map • “Patches” from historical avifauna su

– ~ 110 sites from Carothers, Brown, So

Spence, and others

– Stratified sample within geomorphic re– Logistic constraints
Partially Augmented Rotat

Panel Sampling Design

Urquhart et al. (1998) Ecological Applications 8: 246 - 257

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 

Year 1 X X X X ... Year 2 X X X X ... Year 3 X X X X ... Year 4 X X X X ... Year 5 X X X X ... Year 6 X X X X ... 
Physical Stressors

• Hydrograph

– Shoreline

• Top of fluctuations + 1 meter

– New High Water Zone

• Shoreline to Old High Water Zone

– Old High Water Zone

• Above ~ 90,000 cfs

• Precipitation Index

– WRCC database– 12 regional sites
River Flow

Water’s EdgeNew High WaterOld High Water

Vegetation Structure and Composition Surv

Plus
Total Vegetation Volume

The number of 10cm sections of a survey rod with contacts or live material within 10 cm.**Only live material Only woody species** 

05351030
3 meters

Vegetation species composition at pitfa

1. Record All S2. Cover Class E

for All Speci

1 = < 1%2 = 1- 5 %3 = 5 – 25%4 = 25 – 75%5 = 75 – 100%
Factors Affecting Vegetati

• Zone (Shoreline, New High Water, Old High • Canyon Width (Wide or. Narrow; Schm• Site (Includes all soil, slope, aspect, rim heigh• Year 

– Hydrograph (Max, min, mean, top of fluctuations)– Precipitation (Relative to long term averages)
Grand Canyon Gage 

2001 - 2003

Calendar Year 2001

Date

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Discharge (KCFS)

5

101520

Mean

Calendar Year 2002

Date

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Discharge (KCFS)

5

101520

Calenda

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Discharge (KCFS)

5

10152025
Precipitation Gages

South Rim

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Normalized Precipitation

-2-1

0123

2001 2002 2003 

Lees Ferry

Month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Normalized Precipitation

-2-1

01234

2001 2002 2003 

Jan Feb Mar A

Normalized Precipitation

-2-1

012

20012002 2003 
TVV by Year and Zone

TEM sites

Stage Zone

Shoreline New High Water Old High Water

Total Vegetation Volume

0

50

100150

200120022003

Vegetation Volume Chang

• 2001 = • 2002 = • 2003 = BUT: shor

old high transecta little dthan new water tra
Top End of Fluctuations

(upper 95% confidence limit of daily max

for 30 days preceding river trip)

10000 15000 20000

Total Vegetation Volume

0

50

100150

2001

2002

2003

(-27.5)

(+ 38.5)

(-11.0)

New High Water Zone

• Most ve

variatiorelates fluctuat

• Unexpla

shown i
New High Water Zone

Seasonal Precipitation Index

(proportional deviation from Winter / early Spring norm)

-0.5 0.0 0.5

Residual TVV

-60-40-20

0

2040

2001

2003

2002

• Precipit

(relative term avexplains the rest betweedifferen
WHOA! Big Deal!

• Getting water to plants in the desert 

makes them grow more? WOW!

• This is the first case where year-to-y

changes in vegetation abundance habeen demonstrated to be linked to GCanyon Dam operations (and that is a big de
Shoreline and Old High Water 

• No statistical difference among year

either zone.

• BUT: two-year declines in OHW r

two years of low winter / spring prec

• AND: Two-year increases in Shor

may be related to increasing top-end fluctuations before spring trips.
Other Vegetation Data

• Bird Patches: Show same patte

though less dramatically

• Transect composition: Stron

differences between 2002 and 2001 (herbs and annuals, mostly)
Terrestrial Vegetation 

Monitoring

Vegetation Dynamics 2001 - 
Vegetation Dynamics

• New High Water Zone only

– 15 kcfs to 60 kcfs

• Focus on species composition

– Individual species and functional group

• Tied to hydrograph

– Models of elevation vs. discharge
Sampling Guidelines

• Use probabilistic sample site selectio

– Minimize effects of “expert” judgement

• Maximize number of sites visited

– Increase statistical power

• Reduce site impacts

– Limit frequency of visits to same sites

• Tied to stressors (physical processe

– Flows, geomorphology, substrate
CRFSSGUI Model

(Walters and Korman)
STARS Model

(Randle and Pemberton)

R iv e r M ile

2 .5 

Elevation (m amsl)

940950960

5 ,0 0 0

1 5 ,0 0 02 5 ,0 0 03 5 ,0 0 04 5 ,0 0 06 0 ,0 0 0

T h a lw e g P ro file
Sample Site Selection

• Stratifed by geomorphic reach• Randomly selected “segments”• Random point within segment• Random side at sample point• Exclusions:

– cliffs, administrative, and safety reason
A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Reach 1 Re

1. Randomizing River Segment Order2. Suitability (cliffs, safety and administrative issues)

12 9 10 3 13 1 4 6 7 15 14 5 

A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Repeat Panel D NRotate Panel 1 G LRotate Panel 2 H C

Year 3: Year 1:Year 2:

D G 

D D 

C 

A

Rotate Panel 3 A M

Spatially explicit random samples: A sma
A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Reach 1 Re

1. Randomizing River Segment Order2. Suitability (cliffs, safety and administrative issues)

12 9 10 3 13 1 4 6 7 15 14 5 

A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Repeat Panel D NRotate Panel 1 G LRotate Panel 2 H C

Year 3: Year 1:Year 2:

D G 

D D 

C 

A

Rotate Panel 3 A M

Spatially explicit random samples: A sma
A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Reach 1 Re

1. Randomizing River Segment Order2. Suitability (cliffs, safety and administrative issues)

12 9 10 3 13 1 4 6 7 15 14 5 

A B C D E F G H I J K L 

Repeat Panel D NRotate Panel 1 G LRotate Panel 2 H C

Year 3: Year 1:Year 2:

D G 

D D 

C 

A

Rotate Panel 3 A M

Spatially explicit random samples: A sma
140 Sites, 60 at a time

Rotate 3 (40)

X

X

Total 60 60 60 60 60 60 

Rotate 2 (40)

X

X

Rotate 1 (40)

X

X

Repeat (20)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Panel

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time Period (Years)

Augmented Serially Alternating Panel Des

Increases total number of sites (statistical power)Decreases site impacts of surveys
Vegetation Dynamics Site

62 Sites per yearSampling points at:60 kcfs 45 kcfs 35 kcfs 25 kcfs15kcfs
Vegetation Dynamics Samp

River Flow

4 1m plots / zoneData recorded: Species presentCover by speciesSoil textureCalculate:

Total Cover, Richness, Diversity, Wetland score
Factors affecting vegetatio

• Zone (15, 25, 35, 45, and 60 kcfs)• Canyon Width (Wide or Narrow; Schmid• Site (Includes all soil, slope, aspect, rim heigh• Year 

– Hydrograph (Max, min, mean, top of fluctuation– Precipitation (Relative to long term averages)
Stage (kcfs)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent Vegetative Cover

0

10203040

200120022003

Vegetation Cover: 2001 - 2
Cover Summary

• All Zones: 

– Site is extremely important– Wider reaches have more cover

• Individual Zones

– 15, 25 kcfs: Cover decreased by increasi– 35 kcfs: Cover increased by increasing f– 45, 60kcfs: Reductions in cover by flows 

lagged responses?
Species Richness Pattern

Species Richness

Stage (kcfs)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Species Richness (S)

0246

200120022003

YEAR F(2,705) = 5.08, p < 0.01

ZONE F(2,705) = 9.78, p < 0.01

YEAR*ZONE F(2,705) = 2.74, p < 0.01

• Years are d

(2001 > 200

• Zones are 

(15 / 25 / 35 

• Zones beha

differently 2001 - 200
Species Richness Pattern

Within Zones

• Site is the strongest factor (40 – 55% • Width is important 

– Wider reaches have more cover, change 

• Years differ in most cases:

– 15 kcfs: Flow minimum decreases richn– 25 kcfs: Flow mean increases richness– 35 kcfs: Relative precipitation increases – 45 kcfs: Relative precipitation increases – 60 kcfs: Relative precipitation increases 
Compositional Measures

• Wetland Indicator Score (Stromberg 

– Plot Score = {

Σ (Species Scores) / Total # s

• Indicator Species Analysis (Dufresn

Legendre 1997)
Transect Compositional Ana

• Wetland indicator score changes

– Species have scores (0 = upland, 5 = wetla– Plot scores are means of species scores

• Species present in plots differs...

– ...by zone (no big deal)– ...by year within zones (a bigger deal)
Wetland Indicator Score

• Years are diffe

> 2001 / 2003)

• Zones are diffe

(15 > 25 / 35 > 45 

• Zones behave 

differently 

• Not as expecte

Plot Wetland Indicator Scores

Stage

10 20 30 40 50 60

Mean Wetland Score 1

234

200120022003

YEAR F(2,705) = 4.15, p < 0.05

ZONE F(2,705) = 187.81, p < 0.01

YEAR*ZONE F(2,705) = 1.00, n.s.
Wetland Score Changes

• Driest year has “wettest” wetland sco• Opportunistic species (annual herbs a

grasses) arrive with increased precipi

• These species rate as more facultative 

upland, and so drive the “wetlandishnscore down.
N/A

Ripgut grass

Red brome

Scratchgrass

35 kcfs

N/A Ripgut grass

Red brome 25 kcfs

N/A Ripgut grass

Red brome 15 kcfs

2001 2002

Indicator Species Analysis
N/A

Threeawn grass

Cane bluestem grass

Red brome

Western tansymustard

Slender poreleaf

Desert pepperweed

Sixweeks fescue

60 kcfs

N/A

Spiny aster

Ripgut grass

Red brome

Sand dropseed

Mesa dropseed

45 kcfs

2001 200

Indicator Species Analysis
Summary

• Richness, and to a lesser extent, total cover

affected by flows and precipitation (big deal).

• Lower elevation plots are more strongly aff

flows, higher elevation plots by precipitatio

• Loss of cover at higher elevations due to de

perennial herbs and grasses little recovery 
Connections to Fauna

• Breeding Birds

– Helen Yard

• Invertebrates

– Dave Lightfoot, Sandy Brantley, Neil C

• Herpetofauna

– Geoff Carpenter

• Small Mammals

– Jennifer Frey
River Flow

Water’s EdgeNew High WaterOld High Water

Vegetation Structure Survey

Plus
River Flow

Water’s EdgeNew High WaterOld High Water

Breeding Bird Surveys

100 M
Total Vegetation Volume

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Breeding Bird Density (# / ha)

0

20406080

100

99th Quantile Regression:Density = 23.28 + 0.229*TVVp < 0.01

New High Water Zone 

Breeding Birds
Old High Water Zone 

Breeding Birds

Total Vegetation Volume

0 50 100 150 200 250

Breeding Bird Density (# / ha)

0

20406080

100

99th Quantile RegressionDensity = 27.66 + .156*TVVp < 0.05
House finch

Common yellowthroatYellow warblerBewick’s wrenBlack chinned hummingbird

Total Cover

Tamarisk

Old High Water Trees

Old High Water Shrubs

New High Water Native 

Woody Species

All Grass

Native Grass

Exotic Grass

Blue grey gnatcatcher *Ash throated flycatcher *Bewick’s wrenHouse finchBlack chinned hummingbirdLucy’s warbler*

NHWZ Birds OHWZ Birds

Birds and Vegetation

House finchCommon yellowthroatYellow warblerBewick’s wrenBlack chinned hummingbird

Total Cover

Tamarisk

Old High Water Trees

Old High Water Shrubs

New High Water Native 

Woody Species

All Grass

Native Grass

Exotic Grass

Blue grey gnatcatcher *Ash throated flycatcher *Bewick’s wrenHouse finchBlack chinned hummingbirdLucy’s warbler*

NHWZ Birds OHWZ Birds

Birds and Vegetation
Patch Area (square meters)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

Breeding Bird Density

0

50

100150200

Breeding Bird Density 

vs. Patch Area

Small patcmore variaSmall patchigher denPatterns:

a) Edge b) Foragc) Surve
Invertebrate Sampling

River Flow

Water’s EdgeNew High WaterOld High Water

Plus transect sweeps, collecting by plant species and genera
Arthropod Surveys:

• Primarily inventory• Reference collection • Some connections are obvious
Arthropod Results to Date

923 Taxa delineated 90,000

+ specimens p

8 undescribed species (>100 expected)

Variation in abundance and composition of arthropod

four sampling methods across zones, sites, and seas

Over 120 arthropod taxa show zonal affiliations (Shore, NH

Potential for indicator taxa in future monitoring program
Shore

Crickets

New High Water

CarabidsSpidersCricketsIsopods 

Old High Water

CarabidsIsopods

Total Vegetation 

Volume

Patch Vegetation 

Height 

Shore

Ants

New High 

Hoppers

Old High W

HoppersFliesSpiders

Ground Arthropods Plant Arthropo

Arthropods and Vegetation 

Volume

Shore

Crickets

New High Water

CarabidsSpidersCricketsIsopods 

Old High Water

CarabidsIsopods

Total Vegetation 

Volume

Patch Vegetation 

Height 

Shore

Ants

New High 

Hoppers

Old High W

HoppersFliesSpiders

Ground Arthropods Plant Arthropo

Arthropods and Vegetation 

Volume
Shore

TenebrionidsIsopods

New High Water

SpidersCrickets

Old High Water

IsopodsTenebrionids

Coyote Willow

Arrowweed

Mesquite

Tamarisk

Acacia

Shore

HoppersFliesAnts

New High Wa

FliesBugsCaterpillarsSpiders

Old High Wat

None

Ground Arthropods Plant Arthropod

Arthropods and Plant 

Species

Shore

TenebrionidsIsopods

New High Water

SpidersCrickets

Old High Water

IsopodsTenebrionids

Coyote Willow

Arrowweed

Mesquite

Tamarisk

Acacia

Shore

HoppersFliesAnts

New High Wa

FliesBugsCaterpillarsSpiders

Old High Wat

None

Ground Arthropods Plant Arthropod

Arthropods and Plant 

Species
Herpetofaunal Sampling

Plus general visual searching of TEM sites and bird sites and noctu

River Flow

Water’s EdgeNew High WaterOld High Water
Herpetofaunal Surveys

• Primarily inventory• Distribution and relative abundance • Some connections are obvious
Total Vegetation Volume (TVV)

0 100 200 300

Herpetofaunal density (# / ha)

0

100200300

New High WaterOld High WaterShoreline

Herpetofauna and vegetat
Carabids

IsopodsSpiders

Side Blotch Lizards

Whiptail Lizards

Desert Spiny Lizards

Tree Lizards

TenebrionidsAntsCrickets

NHWZ Arthropods OHWZ Arthrop

Ground Arthropods

CarabidsIsopodsSpiders

Side Blotch Lizards

Whiptail Lizards

Desert Spiny Lizards

Tree Lizards

TenebrionidsAntsCrickets

NHWZ Arthropods OHWZ Arthrop

Ground Arthropods

Herpetofauna and groun

arthropods
Small Mammal Sampling

Plus general visual searching of TEM sites

River Flow

Water’s EdgeNew High WaterOld High Water

x 5
Small Mammal Surveys

• Primarily inventory• Distribution and relative abundance • Some connections are obvious

– No correlation with Vegetation Volume– Individual correlations with arthropods
Ants

CarabidsSpidersIsopods

Pocket Mouse

Deer Mouse

Wood Rat

Isopods

NHWZ Arthropods OHWZ Arthro

SHORE Arthr

CricketsSpidersIsopods

Ground Arthropods

AntsCarabidsSpidersIsopods

Pocket Mouse

Deer Mouse

Wood Rat

Isopods

NHWZ Arthropods OHWZ Arthro

SHORE Arthr

CricketsSpidersIsopods

Ground Arthropods