Introduction
The coastal dune ecosystems of northern California are home to many endemic plant species, including the Humboldt Bay wallflower (Erysimum menziesii Hook.) and beach layia (Layia carnosa Nutt.) which are federally and state listed endangered species. Over the last century, both of these endangered plants have been severely impacted by the introduction of the non-indigenous invasive plant species (NIPS) (Pickart and Sawyer, 1998) of European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link.) and yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus Sims.) (hereafter “beachgrass”, and “lupine”).
Introduced to the Humboldt Bay region’s coastal dune ecosystems in the late 1800’s as part of a dune stabilization effort (Buell, 1992), NIPS have spread throughout the active dune mat habitat, interfering with ecological processes and altering dune morphology (Walter, 2010). Buell (1992) compared historical aerial photos to more recent satellite images and determined that between 1939 and 1989 beachgrass cover on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay had increased by 574%. In a more recent study, Walter (2010) found that beachgrass and lupine, along with other NIPS annual grasses, were responsible for nearly a 25% loss of active coastal dune habitat at the Humboldt Coastal Nature Center in Manilla, CA. The most visible loss of habitat was found in the active coastal dunes which once covered 32.4 ha (62.5% of the property) in 1948 and continuously declined to an area of 7.9 ha (15.23% of the property) in 2009 (Figure 1).
As a result of the spread of NIPS, during the past 20 years’ dune ecosystem restoration and management efforts on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay have increased dramatically. In an attempt to restore dune diversity, non-profit organizations such as Friends of the Dunes (FOD) have made it their mission to eradicate NIPS from their coastal property for good. Community ecosystem restoration teams gather weekly to remove NIPS by hand. This type of restoration technique is important to note because it consists of vigorously pulling and digging the beachgrass and lupine out of the sand by the “rhizome,” beachgrasses’ reproductive underground stems. While hand pulling has proved effective in reducing the coverage of NIPS (Walter, 2010), the technique is extremely labor intensive and needs to be ongoing. Furthermore, at large spatial scales this technique may not be cost effective.
Fire may also play a significant role in NIPS management. More than a century of anthropogenic disturbances has altered native plant diversity and subsequently the natural fire regime. Fire has the ability to increase the distribution and density of invasive plants by making new habitats available, increasing nutrient availability, and decreasing competition from other plants, which in turn decreases native plant diversity and species (Barrett, 2009). While naturally occurring wildfire is not common in the coastal areas of northern California, it is widely accepted by Native American researchers and members of the local Wiyot Tribe that fire was historically used as a management tool on the North Spit (Lightfoot et al., 2013).
Rationale and Objectives
Ecological restoration can include intervention ranging from minimal intervention when non-native species are detected and eliminated to allow natural processes to take place, to maximal intervention, when restoration managers introduce native plant species in plantings or by seeding (Lamb et al., 2005). Depending on the situation, different levels of intervention to restore ecosystems can be successful and cost effective (Mclver, 2001). Many ecological restoration programs employ trial and error restoration techniques to attempt to re-create lost habitats (Howe, Martinez, 2014). However, the optimal way to evaluate the efficacy of a restoration method and determine the costs is by carrying out experiments in which different restoration treatments are tested simultaneously in replicated plots (Suding, 2011.)
Using a randomized block design, I will quantify costs and benefits of a range of restoration techniques, including prescribed fire and native plant species seeding. Suppose that the seeding of native plants has little to no effect on NIPS growth and functionality, the cost of one acre of seed alone is $1200.00. In contrast, research may show that hand-pulling is more effective at removing NIPS than burning, although burning could be used at a much lower cost. By examining the data obtained by the scientific process, I hope to improve the understanding of appropriate treatment methods with regard to restoring and managing native plant species composition, as well as improve managers understanding of costs associated with different treatment methods.
Methods
The 10 km2 study site I have selected for this research is located within a mosaic of foredune ridges and dune swales invaded with beachgrass and lupine. The majority of the dune topography runs in a southeast to northwest direction on the west side of Highway 255 between the towns of Manila and Samoa (40° 45' 47.62" N, 124° 12'12.16" W).
Humboldt Bay has a Mediterranean climate with maximum mean temperatures of 16.4°C in summer and 12.7°C in winter (NWS, 2016). Annual average rainfall is 94 cm, with most precipitation occurring between the months of October and April. Data collection at the study site will take place throughout the Spring and Summer growing seasons of 2017-2018.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Before treatment application, 60 25m2 plots will be randomly selected in the 10km2 study area. I plan to study six different treatments; (1) untreated (experimental control); (2) untreated/seeded; (3) burned/not-seeded; (4) burned/seeded; (5) hand pulled/not-seeded; (6) hand pulled/seeded. To effectively compare these treatments, appropriate randomized split-plot design may be appropriate. Various statistical methods will be used to evaluate the data – boxplots, scatterplots, t-tests, ANOVA, and relevant statistical modeling techniques
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The vegetation composition of each 25m2 plot will be measured by percent coverage of each native and non-native plant species. First, many types of graphs will be constructed; boxplot, scatterplots, and spatial plots. Next, basic comparisons will be made via t-tests, schematic plots, statistical models, etc. Lastly, more advanced statistical methods will be utilized; ANOVA, statistical modeling.
| 2017 TIMELINE | Winter | Spring | Summer | Fall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Data Collection (Prior to treatments) |
||||
| Study Plot Treatment (Burn/Handpull) |
||||
| Study Plot Treatment (Seeding) |
||||
| Seconday Data Collection and Monitoring (Begin Statistical analysis) |
| 2018 TIMELINE | Winter | Spring | Summer | Fall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistical Analysis | ||||
| Primary Data Collection | ||||
| Primary Data Collection | ||||
| Statistical Analysis and Results |
Literature Cited
Barret, J. (2009). Initial First-Year Post Fire Vegetation Response in a Coastal Foredune Ecosystem of Humboldt Bay, California. (Unpublished Thesis). Humboldt State University
Buell, A. C., Pickart, A. J., & Stuart, J. D. (1995). Introduction History and Invasion Patterns of Ammophila arenaria on the North Coast of California. Conservation Biology, 9(6), 1587–1593.
Buell, A. C. (1992, December). A history of the introduction and spread of Ammophila arenaria on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay, California (Thesis). Humboldt State University.
Dukes et al. (2005). Responses of Grassland Production to Single and Multiple Global Environmental Changes. Biology, 3(10), 1829–37.
Howe HF, Martínez-Garza C. Restoration as experiment. Botanical Sciences 92:459–68.
Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310:1628–32.
Lightfoot, K. G., Cuthrell, R. Q., Striplen, C. J., & Hylkema, M. G. (2013). Rethinking the Study of Landscape Management Practices Among Hunter-Gatherers in North America. American Antiquity 78(2), 285–301.
McIver J, Starr L. (2014). Restoration of degraded lands in the interior Columbia River basin: passive vs. active approaches. Forest Ecology and Management. 2001; 153:15–28.
McBride, Joe R. and Edward C. Stone. (1976). Plant succession on the sand dunes of the Monterey Peninsula, California. The American Midland Naturalist 96: 118- 132.
Pickart, A.J., L.M. Miller, and T.E. Duebendorfer. (1998). Yellow bush lupine invasion in Northern California coastal dunes: ecological impacts and manual restoration techniques. Restoration Ecology 6:59-68.
Pickart, A.J. and J.O. Sawyer. (1998). Ecology and restoration of Northern California coastal dunes. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Society of Ecological Restoration, (2015). http://www.ser.org.
Suding KN.(2011). Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annual review of ecology, evolution and systematics.; 42:465–87.
Wali, Mohan K. “Ecological Succession and the Rehabilitation of Disturbed Terrestrial Ecosystems.” Plant & Soil 213, no. 1–2 (January 13, 1999): 195–220.
Walter, Emily L. “Defining Restoration Goals for the Humboldt Coastal Nature Center, Manila, California, Based on an Analysis of Ecological Processes in Coastal Dunes.” Thesis, Humboldt State University, 2010.