How comparable across management goals are grassland monitoring methods?

QuestionsEcological monitoring, repeated collection of ecological data, is essential to document how ecosystems respond to change. In grasslands, different vegetation monitoring protocols are used across disciplines, making it difficult to address multiple management objectives or research questions. We asked four questions about how three common vegetation monitoring protocols compare. (1) How do the protocols differ in how they collect data? (2) How do the protocols differ in their utility? (3) In what ways do vegetation measurements quantitatively differ across protocols? (4) What are each protocols strengths? LocationThis study was conducted on working ranches in the Southern Great Plains with vegetation consisting mainly of native forbs and grasses. MethodsWe implemented three protocols at each site: (1) the Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP), (2) the Grassland Effectiveness Monitoring (GEM) protocol, and (3) a typical pollinator ecology survey protocol. We qualitatively compared each protocols utility and quantitatively compared cover measurements that each produced. ResultsAll three protocols displayed positive associations within cover categories, but differed in actual cover measurements. The RAP protocol, which uses remote sensing, measured the highest total vegetation cover. The GEM protocol, a line-point intercept method, had more capability to capture fine-scale cover patterns. The GEM protocol measured the most bare ground while the Pollinator protocol measured more forb coverage. ConclusionFine-scale methods like the GEM protocol are most appropriate to address objectives that require capturing small patterns that would otherwise be overlooked with methods like quadrats or remote sensing. Remote sensing is advantageous when monitoring large areas or inaccessible land, but may over-estimate cover. The Pollinator protocol is best equipped to address questions regarding flower abundance and richness. Similarities among protocols can facilitate synergy across disciplines for more effective monitoring. We emphasize the importance of denoting a clear scale and scope of monitoring objectives before selecting methods.