Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:02:30.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency and Accuracy of Wildland Weed Mapping Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephanie D. Christensen ,
Corey V. Ransom ,
Kimberly A. Edvarchuk  and
V. Philip Rasmussen
Stephanie D. Christensen
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soils, and Climate, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
Corey V. Ransom*
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soils, and Climate, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
Kimberly A. Edvarchuk
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soils, and Climate, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
V. Philip Rasmussen
Affiliation:
Department of Plants, Soils, and Climate, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land managers must set weed management priorities if limited resources are to be utilized effectively. Weed surveys and inventories assist land managers in this process by providing information regarding the identity, location, and relative abundance of weeds on their land. Although this information is vital, it can be challenging to select a method that provides the necessary data to meet management objectives while remaining accurate and cost effective. This paper critically evaluates four wildland weed mapping methods. These methods were defined as (1) paper-drawn, (2) buffered-point, (3) screen-drawn, and (4) perimeter-walked. Polygons were drawn by hand on topographic maps in the paper-drawn method. The other methods utilized handheld geographic positioning system (GPS) technology to digitally record infestations. Six experienced weed mappers independently recorded the location and size of eight sagebrush patches using each method. Time and accuracy were evaluated for each method based upon mapping time, distance walked, horizontal precision error, estimated size error, and shape error. The paper-drawn method was significantly less accurate than GPS-based methods at recording patch size and location. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of the buffered-point, screen-drawn, and perimeter-walked methods at reporting patch size and location. The need to cover land area quickly and efficiently favors the selection of the buffered-point or screen-drawn method because of time and distance factors. However, if patch shape is an important factor, the perimeter-walked or buffered-point methods may be the best choices of methods tested.

Keywords

Invasive weed surveys/inventoriesinvasive weed managementGPSGIS
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 458 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

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

References

Literature Cited

Andersen, K. A. 2007. USU Wildland Weed Mapping Methods Training Supplement. Master's thesis. Logan, UT Utah State University. Logan, UT. 107 p.Google Scholar
Andersen, K. A. and Dewey, S. A. 2007. Time and accuracy comparisons between point and polygon methods of wildland weed mapping. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 60:54.Google Scholar
Bruno, D. 2001. Guidelines for Terrestrial Noxious Weed Mapping and Inventory in Idaho, Version I. http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range454/Notes/weed_mapping.pdf. Accessed: October 20, 2010.Google Scholar
Cooksey, D. and Sheley, R. 1998. Mapping Noxious Weeds in Montana. Bozeman, MT Montana State University EB148. 23 p.Google Scholar
Devoe, N., Nowak, B., and Florence, S. 2009. Effective management of invasive plants. Rangelands 31:21–24.Google Scholar
Dewey, S. A. and Andersen, K. A. 2004. Distinct roles of surveys, inventories, and monitoring in adaptive weed management. Weed Technol. 18:1449–1452.Google Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. and Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv. Biol. 9:1–760.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W., Prather, T. S., Glenn, N. F., Weber, K. T., Mundt, J. T., and Pettingill, J. 2005. A review of remote sensing of invasive weeds and example of the early detection of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and babysbreath (Gypsophila paniculata) with a hyperspectral sensor. Weed Sci. 53:242–251.Google Scholar
Madden, M. 2004. Remote sensing and geographic information system operations for vegetation mapping of invasive exotics. Weed Technol. 18:1457–1463.Google Scholar
Mau-Crimmins, T. M. and Orr, B. J. 2005. Monitoring invasive plants using hand-held GIS technology. Pages 298–301 in Connecting mountain islands and desert seas: biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago II. Proceedings RMRS-P-36. Fort Collins, CO U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Google Scholar
[NAWMA] North American Weed Management Association. 2002. North American Invasive Plant Mapping Standards. http://www.nawma.org/Mapping/MappingMain.pdf. Accessed: October 20, 2010.Google Scholar
Randall, John M. 2000. Improving management of nonnative invasive plants in wilderness and other natural areas. Pages 64–73 in Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J. and Pokorny, M. L., eds. 2006. Inventory and Survey Methods for Nonindigenous Plant Species. 1st ed. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension. 75 p.Google Scholar
Stohlgren, T., Barnett, D., and Simonson, S. 2005. Beyond North American Weed Management Association Standards. http://www.nawma.org/Mapping/BeyondStandards.pdf. Accessed: September 30, 2010.Google Scholar
[USDA-FS] United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Field Guide: Invasive Plant Inventory, Monitoring and Mapping Protocol. Washington DC USDA Forest Service. 38 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. E., Johnson, W. S., Swanson, S., and Donaldson, S. 1999. Nevada's War on Weeds Steps to Success: Step 3–Map Important Weeds for a Living Inventory. http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/nr/other/FS9977.pdf. Accessed: October 20, 2010.Google Scholar