7.2 Monitoring Protocols
a wide variety of audiences capable of changing the landscape. Table 7.3 provides examples of common performance indicators and measurement targets. Te number of agencies and organizations tracking trends associated with particular habi- tat types or regions of the state can make coordination and statewide assessments difcult. Tere is variability in terms of what is actually monitored, the indicators and criteria that are measured, and methods used to measure those indicators. A key improvement should be the establishment of a statewide clearinghouse of information for assessing habitat status and environmental trends information across North Carolina. 7.2 Monitoring Protocols In addition to the species and habitat monitoring protocols recommended in this Plan, sci- entifc literature is another resource for methodologies appropriate for monitoring various wildlife species. A brief list of examples includes the following resources:
7.2.1 Amphibians and Reptiles
• Greenberg CH, Neary DG, Harris LD. 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling efectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. J Herpetol. 28(3):319–324. An assessment of relative efectiveness of pitfalls, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps at 12 replicate sites in sand pine scrub using drift fence arrays. All three trap types yielded similar estimates of relative abun- dance of lizards and frogs but not snakes. • Crouch WB, Paton WC. 2000. Using egg-mass counts to monitor wood frog populations. Wildl Soc Bull. 28(4):895–901. Assessment of the efcacy of using egg-mass counts to monitor wood frog population because they may not be detectable using calling surveys at breeding ponds. • Welsh Jr. HH, Droege S. 2001. A case for using plethodontid salamanders for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem integrity of North American forests. Conserv Biol. 15(3):558– 569. Considers variability associated with sampling for plethodontid salamanders as indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in forested habitats by estimating the coefcient of variation from available time-series data in comparison and comparison results with lepidoptera, passerine birds, small mammals, and other amphibians. • Acevedo MA, Villanueva-Rivera LJ. 2006. Using automated digital recording systems as efective tools for the monitoring of birds and amphibians. Wildl Soc Bull. 34(1):211–214.
832
2015 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online