TerraLab may focus a lot of time on GIS, but a large portion of the teams skillset is in ecology. Because we take a technological and spatial approach to ecology we like to think of ourselves as “spatial ecologists”.
In fact, TerraLab consultants have acquired quite a niche in ecological consulting where we have become known for our ability to design statistically robust, objective and repeatable ecological monitoring protocols, particularly for rare and threatened species.
Our position of strength stems from the elements listed above: Because we are ecologists, we are experienced with the field methods used by ecologists and the limitations of each type. Because we are spatial data experts, we have an intuitive understanding about the interplay between habitats, densities and abundances of individual plants and animals. And because we are technology experts, we also understand the tools available, their accuracies, precision, and limitations.
“But why would someone need to develop new monitoring methods? Aren’t there standard methods and protocols for species surveys?”
Absolutely, yes, there are. And many are quite good (some not so). For example, the Commonwealth Governments website often has survey guidelines for threatened life forms, like this one for threatened frogs which is quite prescriptive in its requirements. But often you will find that they are very general so that they can encompass the broad array of scenarios a life form can be found in. It doesn’t take into account your specific scenario: your site, the sites variability or consistency, the details of the target species, etc. Therefore, even if you are following one of these guidelines, there are a lot of technical decisions that need to be made before boots can hit the ground to complete the survey. These are things like sampling approach, number of samples, accuracy of location equipment, environmental variables and the statistical power and validity of the survey.
And if there are no guidelines, well then you need to start from scratch. When designing a sampling methodology, you need to ensure the ecologist has the experience to understand the vast array of scenarios that can be encountered in the field, and develops a robust and repeatable method suitable for each.
In the past few years, TerraLab has developed novel survey methods for the following species, all of which are listed as threatened under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in Australia; The highest level of protection a species or community can have:
Measuring the diameter at breast height (DBH) of a Strzelecki Gum. You’ll notice that this tree exceeding the length of our diameter tape.
Amphibromus fluitans (River Swamp Wallaby-grass, Floating Swamp Wallaby-grass)
Dianelle amoena (Matted Flax-lily)
Eucalyptus strzeleckii (Strzelecki Gum)
Lepidium monoplocoides (Winged Pepper-cress)
Litoria raniformis (Growling Grass Frog)
Litoria aurea (Green and Golden Bell Frog)
Myriophyllum porcatum (Ridged Water-milfoil)
Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida (Eltham Copper Butterfly)
Prasophyllum frenchii (Maroon Leek-orchid, Swamp Leek-orchid)
Pseudomys novaehollandiae (New Holland mouse, Pookila)
Pterostylis cheraphila (Floodplain Rustyhood)
Senecio behrianus (Stiff Groundsel)
Thelymitra epipactoides (Metallic Sun-orchid)
These methods are implemented all across south-eastern Australia for reporting against legislative requirements, monitoring population trends and used in reporting back to government agencies.
We have also designed methods that are more generic in the assessment of an ecosystem, such as:
Statistically sound sub-sampling approaches for Vegetation Quality Assessments (VQA)
Using drones to derive Landscape Function Analysis results across broad areas
Conducting statistically valid weed cover sampling across large areas
Conducting statistically valid plant survival monitoring in huge revegetation projects
Estimating tree density using remote sensing
“But why would we pay for that? We can randomise some quadrats.”
A lot of ecologists are aware of concepts like observer bias and under sampling and will attempt to compensate for them. Maybe they’ll throw out a few extra quadrats, or randomise them a bit. But in our experience, if they haven’t done their homework they may be throwing money away. At TerraLab we spend that extra 5% of time on the desktop ensuring the approach is sound and statistically robust, so we can save your field team that extra 25% of field survey time.
To do this. we need to understand the underlying goal of the project so that we can offer the most precise solution. Are you trying to understand absolute abundance of a species in a site? Or trying to compare the relative density of two sites? Maybe you’re trying to assess change over time. If so, what amount of change are you hoping to detect? These questions are all relevant and by teasing out the answers, we help eliminate wasted survey effort.
For example, we helped one client estimate the absolute abundance of an animal on their site. Prior to engaging TerraLab, they were conducting ‘meandering transects’ and reporting how many they found, without consideration of how many they could detect. Their results were not only low, but also highly subject to observer bias (results were heavily influenced by the experience of the ecologist undertaking the survey). We redesigned their sampling approach and prepared the protocols for them to undertake a distance sampling method. The distance sampling approach accounts for the detectability of an animal based on how far away it is from your monitoring feature (e.g. transect or point). That is, the closer it is, the more likely you are going to observe it, in contrast to the individuals that are much further away. The analysis of the data using the distance sampling approach can be intimidating, but we also supplied a pre-formatted spreadsheet that calculated all of their metrics specific for their sample site, so that all they had to do was enter their raw count data. We also reviewed how many transects they had in their survey based on what level of population change they hoped to detect, and identified that they had far too many monitoring locations for what they hoped to achieve. Of course, more samples is a good thing, but once you factor in the change you are trying to detect, you very quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. This allows you to reduce survey effort, and save the budget for other management actions.
After the review, TerraLab saved this client time, money, improved their estimate of abundance, and eliminated one of the more severe biases they had.
Histogram of observations during a distance sampling survey which shows that the number of individuals they observed (y-axis) diminished the further away the observer is from the transect (x-axis).
Do you have an ecological monitoring project that involves sub-sampling? Consider having TerraLab review the methodology. A small saving in efficiency and increase in accuracy will compound over the years and produce more meaningful data for your project. Check out our ecological services page, or reach out.