Restore Seabeach Amaranth: A Federally Threatened Species

Restore Seabeach Amaranth: A Federally Threatened Species

Habitat Assessment and Restoration of (Amaranthus pumilus, Amaranthaceae)

Using Remote Sensing Data

2001 Natural Resource Preservation Program

RMP Project Statement Number: CAHA-N-018.000

Final Report

9/25/2004

Claudia L. Jolls*

Ph.D., Associate Professor of Biology

UNC Board of Governors Distinguished Professor for Teaching

(252) 328-6295

[email protected]

Jon D. Sellars**

M.S. in Biology, Research

Technician II

Sarah E. Johnson

M.S. in Biology Candidate, Graduate Research Assistant

Cass A. Wigent***

M.S. in Biology Candidate, Graduate Research Assistant

Department of Biology

East Carolina University

Greenville, NC 27858-4353

*author for correspondence

**current address: NOAA, SSMCIII 8218, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910,

(301) 713-1428 ext. 165, [email protected]

***current address: Keep America Beautiful Coordinator, 1221 Thorpe Rd., Rocky Mount, NC

27804, (252) 972-1327, [email protected]

0057101

mailto:[email protected]


https://piratemail.ecu.edu/exchange/SEJ0207/Deleted%20Items/Latest%20Version%20of%20Report.EML/Final%20Report%206-3-2004-2004.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/[email protected]

https://piratemail.ecu.edu/exchange/SEJ0207/Deleted%20Items/Latest%20Version%20of%20Report.EML/Final%20Report%206-3-2004-2004.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/[email protected]



ABSTRACT

Remotely sensed data and geographic information systems (GIS) can be used to aid

management decisions about species of concern at local and landscape levels. Aerial

photography, light-detection and ranging data (LIDAR) and ground-truthing were used to

evaluate habitat for the federally threatened plant, seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus

Raf.), at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape Lookout National Seashores (CALO), North Carolina,

and Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS), Maryland. Habitat was defined from field

work and remote sensing data, using variables readily extracted from LIDAR including

elevation, slope, aspect, surface complexity and reflectance as an index of vegetation, analyzed

using statistics and GIS.

Our model describes a narrow elevation range (0.77-2.00 m above MHW) with very

limited vegetation cover for highest survival and growth, particularly on south-southwest facing

beaches. LIDAR and GIS were used to analyze habitat availability at CAHA, CALO and ASIS.

North Carolina seashores with the most inlets and thus more area as south or south-west facing

island ends appear to provide more habitat and currently support larger plant populations.

We confirmed the viability of our model using transplants to experimental plots (below,

within or above the predicted elevation range) and for elevations below our predicted range (near

vs. far from shore, thus, high vs. low risk of overwash). Plants are highly tractable in culture,

reared from field-collected seed in lab and greenhouse, then planted at microsites selected from

the GIS. Three field seasons included testing of a habitat model using 1698 plants (360 in 2001,

690 in 2002 and 648 in 2003). Success of these transplants was monitored during each growing

season for at least 10 wk. Plant survival and reproduction is dependent on seed moist chilling,

light and high, alternating temperatures during germination. Size and date of outplanting also

affect plant success. Plants did best when transplanted to the field when at least 9 wk of age in

0057102

early June in North Carolina. Survival and growth of Amaranthus pumilus is very microsite

dependent. Plants at lower elevations are larger and will produce more seed, however, the risk of

mortality from overwash is increased on some beaches. Transplants higher than our predicted

elevation range can be more likely to survive at certain sites. Plants at higher elevations above

our predicted habitat, however, are between two to nearly five times smaller and more likely to

experience herbivory, particularly higher levels of grazing by insects, other invertebrates and

possibly vertebrates. Given the dynamic nature of this species‟ shoreline habitat, its life history

and dynamic population sizes, despite its tractability in culture, preservation and restoration is

critically dependent upon management of extant habitat and seed sources, even in the absence of

naturally occurring plants in any given year. This work can aid restoration of a federally

threatened plant species as well as habitat evaluation for associated protected taxa, such as

breeding shorebirds and sea turtles.

0057103

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful for support from the National Park Service and their Natural Resources

Recovery Program, from the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program nd from the ALACE

partners, NASA, NOAA and USGS. Particular thanks are extended to Keith Watson, for

originally encouraging and supporting this project, Jame Amoroso, Mike Aslaksen, Bernice

Bailes, Lawrence Belli, Marj Boyer, David Brenner, Mark Brinson, Beth Chester, Jeff Colby,

Arielle Cooley, Jeff Cordes, Mary Doll, Jim Ebert, Nikki Ernst, Karl Faser, Cecil Frost, Dave

Eslinger, Carol Goodwillie, Emma Hardison, Steve Harrison, Michael Hearn, Don Holbert, Mark

Jansen, Chris Lea, Marcia Lyons, Mark Keusenkothen, Melynda May, Anne McLendon, Loyal

Mehrhoff, Nora Murdock, Johnny Randall, Michael Rikard, Kristen Rosenfeld, Judy Ryan, Dale

Suiter, Karen Trueblood, Wendy Walsh, Jason Woolard, Steve Young. Student financial support

from the ECU Department of Biology Martha N. Jones Scholarship, the ECU Graduate Scholars

Program, and the North Carolina Botanical Garden is gratefully acknolwedged. We also thank

the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratories and Drs. Carol Saravitz, Janet Shurtleff, Judy

Thomas, Thomas Wentworth at North Carolina State University for technical and logistical

assistance, and the citizenry of the Outer Banks of North Carolina for their support of our

Atlantic coast natural heritage.

0057104

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

PROBLEM STATEMENT 1

Objectives 3

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY 4

Approach and Methods 4

Task 1: Application of GIS and LIDAR to Identify Critical Habitat:

Habitat Assessment, Modeling and Surveys for Naturally Occurring Plants 4

Methods: Modeling and GIS 5

Methods: Surveys for Naturally Occurring Amaranthus pumilus 8

Results: Habitat Assessment, GIS and Plant Occurrence Data on CD 9

Results: Habitat Assessment and Naturally Occurring Plants 11

Methods: Analysis of Total Suitable Habitat 11

Results: Analysis of Suitable Habitat 12

Task 2: Seed and Seedling Reintroduction and Success of Transplants 14

Plant Response to Elevation: Transplants 2001 14

Methods: Transplants 2001 14

Plant Response to Elevation 2001:

Stratification, Seed Source, Seed Germination and Propagation of Transplants 15


Transplant Site Selection and Experimental Design 16

Plant Response to Elevation 2001: Transplant Census 17

Plant Response to Elevation: Transplants 2002 17


0057105

ii


Stratification, Seed Source Seed Germination and Propagation of Transplants 17



Plant Response to Elevation 2002: Transplant Census 19

Plants Response to Elevation and Distance from Shoreline: Transplants 2003 20


Plant Response to Elevation and Distance from Shoreline 2003:

Seed Source, Stratification, Seed Germination and Propagation of Transplants 20



Plant Response to Elevation and Distance from Shoreline: Transplant Census 2003 23

Results: Plant Response to Elevation: Transplants 2001 25



Plant Success: Survival 2003 26

Plant Success: Phenology and Seed Set 2003 28

Plant Success: Size 2003 28

Herbivory 2003 29

CONCLUSIONS, APPLICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE 31

ORIGINAL PROPOSED SCHEDULE 40

LITERATURE CITED 43

APPENDIX A 108

0057106

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. LIDAR elevation data are recorded by measuring the time required for a laser to reach

the beach surface. Courtesy NOASS-Coastal Services Center ............................................ 49

Figure 2. Selection of transplant sites was facilitated using LIDAR data. Areas in green are

within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), are not

experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover . Potential habitat

for year 2000 and plant occurrences from 2002 have been overlain on year 2000 passive-

LIDAR imagery for the east end of Shackleford. Areas of darker gray, landward of the

MHW line, are vegetated dune. ............................................................................................ 50

Figure 3. Shoreline change analyses (elevation by year and elevation change) is partitioned as a

series of four “tiles” at Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS). ................................. 51

Figure 4. Natural plant occurrences for the years 2001-2003 on the Tile 1 section of Assateague

Island National Seashore overlain on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 2000.

Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water

(MHW), are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover.

Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune. ............................... 53














(MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat

areas are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Areas

of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and marsh. ........................ 56

Figure 8. Natural plant occurrences at Hatteras Point (CAHA) for the years 2000 through 2003

overlain on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 1999. Source: ECU and NPS GPS

survey data. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean

High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255.

Suitable habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low

vegetation cover. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and

marsh. .................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 9. Natural plant occurrences at Hatteras Inlet for the years 2000 through 2003 overlain

on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 1999. Source: ECU and NPS GPS survey

data. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High

Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable

habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover.

Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and marsh. .............. 58

0057107

iv

Figure 10. Natural plant occurrences on Ocracoke Island (CAHA) from 2002 and 2003 overlain

on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 1999. Source: NPS GPS survey data.





Figure 11. Natural plant occurrences at Cape Lookout Point overlain on the LIDAR Passive

Reflectance image from 2000. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00

m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from

0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support

low vegetation cover. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune

and marsh. ............................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 12. Natural plant occurrences at Cape Lookout Spit overlain on the LIDAR Passive

Reflectance image from 2000. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00

m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from

0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support

low vegetation cover. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune

and marsh. ............................................................................................................................. 61

Figure 13. Natural plant occurrences on the east end of Shackleford Banks (CALO) overlain on

the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 2000. Source: ECU and NPS GPS survey data.





Figure 14. Natural plant occurrences on the west end of Shackleford Banks (CALO) overlain on






Figure 15. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Hatteras Point (CAHA) for the years

2000 through 2003. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above

Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to

255. Suitable habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low

vegetation cover. Potential habitat for year 1999 and plot locations have been overlain on

1999 passive-LIDAR imagery for Cape Hatteras Point (CAHA). Areas of darker gray,

landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and marsh. ................................................. 64

Figure 16. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Hatteras Inlet (CAHA) for the year 2000

through 2003. Plots were established only during 2000 and 2001. Areas in green are within

the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a

reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not

experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Potential habitat for

year 1999 and plot locations have been overlain on 1999 passive-LIDAR imagery for

Hatteras Inlet. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and

marsh. .................................................................................................................................... 65

0057108

v

Figure 17. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Lookout Lighthouse area for the year

2000 through 2003. Plots were only established at the Lighthouse area during 2003. Areas

in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW),

and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are

not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Potential habitat

for year 2000 and plot locations have been overlain on year 2000 passive-LIDAR imagery

for the Cape Lookout Lighthouse area. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line,

are vegetated dune and marsh. .............................................................................................. 66

Figure 18. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Lookout Point for the year 2000

through 2003. Only during the year 2001 were plots established on the Point. .................. 67

Figure 19. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Lookout Spit for the year 2000 through

2003. No plots were plots established on the Spit during 2000. Areas in green are within

the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a

reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not

experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Potential habitat for

year 2000 and plot locations have been overlain on year 2000 passive-LIDAR imagery for

Cape Lookout Spit. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune

and marsh. ............................................................................................................................. 68

Figure 20. Directory structure on the accompanying compact disk (CD). ................................. 69

Figure 21. Survival of 2001 transplants of seabeach amaranth to Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and

Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores during approximately two months of the

growing season. P = Cape Hatteras Point (CAHA), I = Cape Hatteras Inlet (CAHA), O = N.

Ocracoke Island (CAHA), L – Cape Lookout Spit (CALO). IN and OUT denote sites

within or outside the predicted elevation range for success of transplants based on 1998

(CALO) and 1999 (CAHA) LIDAR. .................................................................................... 70

Figure 22. The proportional change in diameter of 2002 transplants from 2 wk to 10 wk

followed a significant negative trend. Transplants to lower elevations were larger than

plants in the next higher elevation group. The IN and HIGH groups contained 11

individuals each that had been decapitated and were withheld from the analysis. ............... 71

Figure 23. The proportion of Amaranthus pumilus surviving thorough 10 wk in 2002 was

significantly influenced by elevation group. Plants at lower elevations experienced more

frequent overwash and flooding............................................................................................ 72

Figure 24. Proportion of plants surviving at 10 wk in 2002 that had reached seed set during the

census period. ........................................................................................................................ 73

Figure 25. Box plots (median and interquartile range) of plant diameters (cm) for a sub-sample

of naturally occurring plants on Shackleford Banks (CALO) in 2002. Plants in the lowest

elevation range (< 0.77 m above Mean High Water) were significantly larger than plants at

higher elevations. .................................................................................................................. 74

Figure 26. Mean percent survival throughout 10 wk (02 June –20 August 2003) for Amaranthus

pumilus transplants growing above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at

Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Bars represent the upper ends of 95% confidence

intervals (n = 6). .................................................................................................................... 75

Figure 27. Mean percent survival throughout 10 wk (11 June-15 August 2003) for Amaranthus

pumilus transplants growing above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at

Cape Lookout National Seashore. Bars represent the upper ends of 95% confidence

intervals (n = 3). .................................................................................................................... 76

0057109

vi


pumilus transplants growing two distances (NEAR and FAR) from shore at Cape Lookout

National Seashore. Bars represent the upper ends of 95% confidence intervals (n=3). ...... 77

Figure 29. Phenology of Amaranthus pumilus transplants represented as the percentage of plants

setting seed after 10 wk in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted

elevation range at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores.

Data were not collected for CALO during Week 6. The bars represent 95% confidence

intervals (for CAHA, n = 6 and for CALO, n = 3). .............................................................. 78

Figure 30. Potential application of GIS model of Amaranthus pumilus habitat to animal species

of concern. Habitat is delineated as 0.77-0.22 m above MHW. Locations of nesting

animals are overlain on seabeach amaranth habitat along with plant occurrences (in red):

Piping Plover (Charadius melodus)in brown, American Oystercatcher ( ) in orange) and sea

turtles (Caretta caretta) in blue. ........................................................................................... 79

0057110

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Numbers of naturally occurring plants of Amaranthus pumilus at Cape Hatteras

(CAHA) and Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores since 1985. Empty cells represent

no data. Censuses were completed by a variety of personnel and agencies, typically July-

August. .................................................................................................................................. 80

Table 2. A comparison of available Amaranthus pumilus habitat at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and

Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashore for years with available LIDAR. Available

habitat was modeled as an elevation value between 0.77 and 2.00 meters above Mean High

Water and (2) had a reflectance value above 170. Comparisons used number of pixels (3x 3

m2 cells), area (ha), length of shoreline (km) and a index as a ratio of to total area of

available habitat relative to length of shoreline (km/ha). ..................................................... 81

Table 3. Survival of all 2001 Amaranthus pumilus transplants on Cape Hatteras and Cape

Lookout National Seashores. There were 90 transplants in three plots (30 per plot) at each

of the four sites...................................................................................................................... 82

Table 4. Survival of 2001 Amaranthus pumilus transplants by placement in or out of “good”

habitat for 12 plots as of 2 August 2001 at Cape Lookout and 14 August 2001 Cape

Hatteras National Seashores. ................................................................................................ 83

Table 5. Number and percent survival to 10 wk (01 June to 20 August 2003) of Amaranthus

pumilus transplants in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation

range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Numbers in parentheses represent the expected

values used in Pearson‟s Chi-Square Analysis. .................................................................... 84

Table 6. Number and percent survival to 10 wk of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research

plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National

Seashore. Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact Test. 85

Table 7. Percent survival to 10 wk (01 June to 20 August 2003) of Amaranthus pumilus

transplants in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at

Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA). Plots are arranged from the most northern

(North 1) to most southern (South 3) beach position. ........................................................... 86


transplants in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at

Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). The six plots are arranged from the most

northern (North 1) to most southern (North 3) beach position. ............................................ 87

Table 9. Number and percent survival to 10 wk of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research

plots two distances from shore (FAR and Near) at Cape Lookout National Seashore.

Numbers in parentheses represent the expected values used in Pearson Chi-Square Analysis.

............................................................................................................................................... 88


transplants in research plots two distances from shore (NEAR and FAR) at Cape Lookout

National Seashore. Plots are arranged from the most northern (North 1) to the most

southern (North 3) beach position......................................................................................... 89

Table 11. Frequency and percent of Amaranthus pumilus transplants setting seed after 10 wk in

research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras

National Seashore. Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact

Test. ....................................................................................................................................... 90

0057111

viii


research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout

National Seashore. Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s

Exact Test.............................................................................................................................. 91

Table 13. Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the initial and final measured diameters

(cm) of Amaranthus pumilus transplants within research plots at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and

Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores. ........................................................................ 92

Table 14. Mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the initial and final measured diameters

(cm) of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the

predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. ........................................... 93


(cm) of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots within above (HIGH) and (IN) the

predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore. ........................................... 94


(cm) of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots two distances from shore (NEAR

vs. FAR) at Cape Lookout National Seashore. ..................................................................... 95

Table 17. 2 x 2 Chi-Square contingency table of the number of Amaranthus pumilus transplants

with or without observed herbivory during wk 10 at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) (n = 297) and

Cape Lookout (CALO) (n = 178) National Seashores. Expected values are shown within

parentheses. ........................................................................................................................... 96


exhibiting different degrees of herbivory during wk 10 at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) (n = 297)

and Cape Lookout (CALO) (n = 178) National Seashores. Expected values are shown

within parentheses. ................................................................................................................ 97


with or without observed herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n = 159)

and within (IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore

(CAHA). Expected values are shown within parentheses. .................................................. 98


exhibiting different degrees of herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n =

159) and within (IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National

Seashore (CAHA). Expected values are shown within parentheses. ................................... 99



and within (IN) (n = 77) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore

(CALO). Expected values are shown within parentheses. ................................................. 100

Table 22. 2 x 3 contingency table of the number of Amaranthus pumilus transplants exhibiting

different degrees of herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n = 74) and

within (IN) (n = 77) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore

(CALO). Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact Test.

............................................................................................................................................. 101


with or without observed herbivory during wk 2 in research plots two distances from shore

(FAR (n = 62) and NEAR (n = 27)) at Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). Expected

values are shown within parentheses. ................................................................................. 102

0057112

ix


different degrees of herbivory during wk 2 in research plots two distances from shore (FAR

(n = 62) and NEAR (n = 27)) at Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). .................... 103



and within (IN) (n = 77) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore

(CALO). Expected values are shown within parentheses. ................................................. 104



74) and within (IN) (n = 77) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National

Seashore (CALO). Expected values are shown within parentheses. ................................. 105



and within (IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore

(CAHA). Expected values are shown within parentheses. ................................................ 106



159) and within (IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National

Seashore (CAHA). Expected values are shown within parentheses. ................................. 107

Appendix. File listing of contents of CD (\cd_data) expanded from Figure 20……………….108

0057113

Final Report 2004: Restore Seabeach Amaranth

Jolls, Sellars, Johnson and Wigent


RMP Project Statement Number: CAHA-N-018.000, CALO-N-006.001, ASIS-N-016.005

1

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Species are being lost to extinction at a rate unprecedented in history and much of this

loss can be attributed to habitat destruction or alteration (Chapin et al. 1997, Vitousek et al.

1997). Species once frequent are approaching the threatened or endangered status within a few

human generations. One such example is seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), a fleshy

annual plant native to the barrier island beaches of the Atlantic coast. Seabeach amaranth has a

global rank of G2 (6-20 sites or 1,000-3,000 individuals known, The Nature Conservancy). It

was once native to nine east coast states from Massachusetts to South Carolina, but was

extirpated from greater than 50% of its historic range (USFWS 1992, 1993, 1996). It was

designated as federally threatened in 1993; at the time of its listing, populations occurred only in

North and South Carolina and New York (USFWS 1992, 1993). Many of the remaining

populations (DE, MD, NC, NJ, NY, SC) are small and the species appears vulnerable to

extirpation in at least two states; no naturally occurring plants have been observed in South

Carolina since the onset of this study in 2001. The largest remaining substantial populations are

in New York (Steve Young, New York Natural Heritage Program, and Dale Suiter, USFWS,

pers. comm.).

Primary habitat of seabeach amaranth is overwash flats at accreting ends of islands, lower

foredunes and/or upper strands of non-eroding beaches. Amaranthus pumilus requires disturbed

beach areas within a narrow elevation range (Bücher and Weakly 1990); its critical habitat may

represent a narrow spatial and temporal window on the dune landscape. This species has been

termed “a fugitive species,” i.e., an early successional member of a community that is a poor

competitor and requires disturbance to proliferate (Bazzaz 1979). Established dunes become

unsuitable when competition from other species increases. Herbivory by insects (webworms)

0057114





2

and feral animals also can limit success of individual plants and populations, as can natural

forces such as beach erosion, storm-related erosion, dune movement and tidal inundation.

However, the extirpation of the species has been attributed largely to human encroachment into

amaranth habitat; other threats to seabeach amaranth include anthropogenic activities such as

beach stabilization and its structures, and beach grooming (Bücher and Weakly 1990, USFWS

1996).

Within the state of North Carolina, areas where Amaranthus pumilus populations have

numbered in the thousands historically now are devoid of the plant. Although numbers of plants

censused increased between 2002 and 2003 (e.g., from 5700 to 9366 along 112 miles of beach

per the Army Corps of Engineers, Dale Suiter, USFWS, pers. comm.), abundances of seabeach

amaranth in North Carolina are a fraction of the reports of approximately 40,000 individuals

reported in the late 1980‟s and in 1995. Many of the largest remaining populations within North

Carolina are located on publicly owned lands, including Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape

Lookout National Seashores (CALO). Plants at these national sites are being protected from

beach armoring, the most serious threat to the species' continued existence. Off-road vehicle

traffic also has been routed around areas where plants are growing on National Park Service

(NPS) lands. Despite their protection, populations of seabeach amaranth at Cape Hatteras and

Cape Lookout National Seashores are at historic lows (see Results, Table 1).

The natural dynamism of coastal systems is required for Amaranthus pumilus persistence.

As a fugitive shoreline species, seabeach amaranth most likely can tolerate catastrophic

disturbance, probably as seed in a seed bank. Dramatic fluctuations in population sizes,

including recovery to pre-storm abundance, have been documented within a few years after

major hurricanes (Alan Weakley, The Nature Conservancy, pers. comm.). Provided plants have

0057115





3

matured and set seed, storms can disperse seed, and, in all likelihood, create a seed bank and

later expose seeds to light for germination. The recent re-occurrence of plants on Long Island,

NY, Assateague National Seashore, MD (ASIS), Delaware and New Jersey after decades of

absence may be recruitment from nearby deep inlets, disturbed dunes, or more southern seed

sources by major storm events and currents.

Research and management needs in general for seabeach amaranth throughout its range

have been articulated by USFWS (Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern

United States FWS Region 4 (8/93). These needs include:

1) Monitor and protect existing populations

2) Conduct research on the biology of the species

3) Establish new populations or rehabilitate marginal populations to the point where

they are self-sustaining

4) Investigate and conduct necessary management activities at all key sites

Objectives

To address some of these management needs for seabeach amaranth requires 1)

designation of habitat, 2) identification of habitat that may be threatened from storm events

(erosional hotspots) or other forces, 3) greenhouse/laboratory propagation of plants for

restoration as well as 4) identification of sites suitable for restoration. In an effort to understand

the species‟ ecology and to provide information to NPS resource managers for restoration, we

developed guidelines for seabeach amaranth re-introduction to historic and/or extirpated sites

selected using remotely sensed data, GIS and a program of reintroduction from

greenhouse/laboratory-reared plants. The objectives of this study were to:

0057116





4

1) develop methodologies to predict species occurrences from remotely sensed data

and topographically characterize seabeach amaranth habitat using remotely sensed

data in a geographic information system (GIS),

2) use remote sensing data to establish potential reintroduction sites, and

3) reintroduce seeds and seedlings of seabeach amaranth to historic and/or extirpated

sites within the Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores.

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY

Approach and Methods

Task 1: Application of GIS and LIDAR to Identify Critical Habitat:

Habitat Assessment, Modeling and Surveys for Naturally Occurring Plants

Existing seabeach amaranth habitat needs to be marked for conservation and suitable

areas slated for species reintroduction. This requires incorporating spatial data from many

sources into one database, analyzing the data, and retrieval and display of the data. This can be

accomplished using geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing. GIS and remote

sensing aids conservation, management and restoration by integrating environmental features

and processes (topography, soil types, vegetation, species occurrences, and their changes in

space and time) with physical structures and human activities (roads, political boundaries, public

use patterns). Knowledge gained by scientists using GIS can then be passed on to policy makers

(Lambert and Carr 1998, Lopez 1998, Savitsky 1998). Remotely sensed and existing survey

data in a GIS has been used to predict endangered species occurrences, such as the California

Condor (Scepan and Blum 1987) and Harlequin ducks (Thibault et al. 1998).

0057117





5

Methods: Modeling and GIS

We used remotely sensed data and GIS to develop a rapid assessment method for

selecting potential habitat and restoration sites for Amaranthus pumilus. A. pumilus tends to

occur in areas that are relatively homogeneous in terms of topography (Sellars 2001), i.e., areas

that have minimal changes in elevation and/or aspect over short distances (15 – 30 m). These

topographic characteristics can be extracted from digital elevation models (DEMs) (Sinton et al.

2000, Thompson et al. 2001).

The lack of high-resolution DEMs has been a limiting factor in dune studies (Brown and

Arbogast 1999); however, a recently developed technology, Light Detection And Ranging

(LIDAR), has provided a new source for generating these DEMs. LIDAR topographic data are

collected via laser emitted from a low flying aircraft (Fig. 1). Elevation data (+ 15 cm accuracy)

are determined by recording trip time for the laser to the ground and back to the laser altimeter

while horizontal data are recorded using a differentially corrected global positioning system

(DGPS). The elevation and horizontal data are then combined and made available through the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‟s Coastal Services Center (NOAA-CSC,

Charleston, SC).

LIDAR data have been collected for most of the United States maritime coast, including

North Carolina. LIDAR data were collected in North Carolina by the Airborne LIDAR

Assessment of Coastal Erosion (ALACE) partnership. The ALACE partnership is a

collaboration among NOAA, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), and

the US Geologic Survey (USGS), and are available through an on-line Web-based application

from the NOAA-CSC, the LIDAR Data Retrieval Tool (LDART). The North Carolina missions

0057118





6

have been flown for the years 1996-2000 in an effort to document shoreline change (Meredith et

al. 1999). However, LIDAR data are not available for all portions of the state for all years.

Two habitat variables known to influence the distribution of Amaranthus pumilus,

elevation and elevation change through time (Bücher and Weakley 1990, Weakley and Bucher

1992), are both obtainable from LIDAR data. Sellars (2001) combined these variables and

others (slope, standard deviation of elevation and of aspect as measures of topographic

heterogeneity) into a single model to predict seabeach amaranth occurrence and habitat using a

total of 164 plants from three sites in Carteret and Brunwick County, NC. The model was

constructed and evaluated using multiple statistical techniques, including regression and other

published model performance measures (Sellars and Jolls 2000, Sellars 2001, Sellars and Jolls

2001a, b, 2002 and in review). They found that elevation was the most limiting topographic

variable controlling the occurrence of A. pumilus.

In coastal systems, elevation is frequently expressed relative to shoreline, defined as the

upper limit of the last high tide (Stockdon et al. 2002). We expressed elevation relative to Mean

High Water (MHW). Mean high water is the average high water level defined from tidal gauge

stations, based on local sea level. However, mean high water is not comparable across sites.

Elevations that are comparable across sites are expressed relative to a vertical geodetic datum. A

datum is defined as a set of constants specifying the coordinate system used for geodetic control.

These systems may be historic, e.g. NGVD29 or more current, such as NAVD88. LIDAR data

are in NAVD88 and can be converted to local tidal benchmarks, e.g., Mean Lower Low Water,

Mean High Water, Mean Tide Level, etc. Our model used seabeach amaranth elevations relative

to mean high water, defined as the average high tide. We calculated Mean High Water (MHW

by using National Ocean Service tidal benchmark data. By subtracting the elevation above

0057119





7

MHW from the elevation in NAVD88, the result is the elevation above MHW in NAVD88. For

our model, MHW was determined as the difference between the local tidal benchmark and

NAVD88 elevation. Elevations above MHW then were computed.

Additionally, we also used grayscale (passive) LIDAR data to assess the role of

vegetation cover in A. pumilus distribution (Sellars 2001, Sellars and Jolls in review). The

passive LIDAR images are grayscale-panchromatic “pictures” of the beach and can be used to

distinguish areas of different habitat type (Fig. 2). The occurrence of seabeach amaranth in

previous years also was factored into the models. The models using elevation and passive

LIDAR performed well, predicting 46-100% of the plant occurrences using as little as 2% of the

habitat. Our initial models stressed elevation in the designation of seabeach amaranth habitat. In

2003, however, statistical analyses of 2001 natural plant occurrences on Cape Lookout using a

stepwise discriminant function analysis of 2000 LIDAR data suggested that passive LIDAR and

distance from shore can be used to predict > 90% of plant occurrences (Sellars et al. 2003).

Model loadings showed that the passive data, an index of bare sand, is the more important of the

two variables. In addition, this model predicted that as little as 15% of the area would be suitable

habitat for seabeach amaranth. This suggests that one critical additional habitat variable is open

sand (Sellars et al. 2003).

In 2002-2004, we extended this work to other protected shorelines for which extensive

LIDAR data are available, e.g. Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS), MD, and their

recent reintroduction program for seabeach amaranth (Lea and King 2002, Chris Lea and Mark

Duffy, NPS, pers. comm.). ASIS also houses protected taxa and has begun a reintroduction

program through the year 2002. In addition, individual GPS locations exist for seabeach

amaranth plants at the northern limit of its range in New York (Tom Hart, NY Coastal

0057120





8

Resources; Jon Young and John Ozard, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation. GIS/LIDAR analyses was compiled as a series of “tiles” for each seashore: four

for ASIS and six each for CAHA and CALO (Fig. 3).

Methods: Surveys for Naturally-Occurring Amaranthus pumilus

Naturally occurring plants were initially located by visiting sites known to have plants in

previous seasons by walking and use of ATVs. All Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout beaches

were searched by ECU and/or NPS staff; locations of these plants relative to our model based on

elevation and vegetation cover are presented in Figs. 4-14. Groups typically consisted of two or

three plants but occasionally included clumps with dozens of plants. Estimates were made of the

number of plants in large clumps by counting the number of individuals in a smaller area,

counting the number of similar sized areas in the clump, and then multiplying. Similarly, to

estimate the large number of plants on the east end of Shackleford Banks during the 2003 season,

the density of plants per meter of beach was multiplied by the length of that section of beach.

Locations of plants at ASIS were obtained from NPS personnel; their methods are not

part of this report. GPS positions were recorded using a Garmin 12 handheld with a differential

beacon receiver (Garmin International Inc., Olathe, KS) with accuracy of 2 m. GPS positions

were recorded for individual plants and small groups of plants. GPS locations of naturally

occurring plants were compiled, analyzed and entered into GIS software, ArcView (ESRI,

Redlands, CA, Figs. 4-14). Some additional locations for single, remotely located plants were

provided by park service personnel.

Elevations were measured for many naturally occurring plants. In all cases, an electronic

laser level (Topcon

RL-50A, Paramus, NJ) was used to over-land survey to the plants from a

0057121





9

known vertical elevation reference mark. The vertical reference marks were of two types: 1)

National Geodetic Survey (NGS) markers, and 2) benchmarks we established ourselves based on

NGS markers. We established our own benchmarks only when NGS markers were unavailable

or impractical for use as laser level references. Two Trimble GPS units, simultaneously

recording carrier phase data, were used to establish the elevations at our new remote

benchmarks. Those data then were downloaded using Pathfinder Office software (Trimble

Navigation, Ltd., Sunnyvale, CA), converted to RINEX format (RINEX version 1.9, Magellan

Corp., San Dimas, CA) and post-processed using Magellan

MSTAR software (Magellan

Systems Corp., San Dimas, CA). Estimated elevation accuracies at the new remote benchmarks

were 10 cm.

Results: Habitat Assessment, GIS and Plant Occurrence Data on CD

GIS/LIDAR analysis has been completed for the majority of the historic range of

seabeach amaranth on Assateague Island, Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores.

The results of the GIS are presented for each of the three national seashores as Figures 4-19 and

also digitally on a compact disk (CD), along with reports and an explanatory presentation as

guide for the CD (lidar.ppt) also are on the disk. The file structure of the CD is presented in Fig.

20,including analyses from ArcView. Mean High Water, shoreline, elevation change and

location of plants. The images are in GeoJPEG format (*.jpg). This format has the advantages

of small-sized files which are easily imported to GIS programs and viewed without GIS software

using any imaging software. Each *.jpg file has an associated *.jgw “World File”, a file which

tells ArcView where to draw the picture, and an associated metadata or explanatory text file

0057122





10

(*.met). ArcView Extensions are needed to view the GeoJPEGs and also are included on the CD

(directory arc_ext:\ *.avx, *.dll files).

Elevation difference between the earliest and latest record for each site was calculated;

this provides an indication of erosion/deposition trends. Mean High Water shapefiles (directory

mhwshape) present the location of Mean High Water (MHW) as a contour line for each year for

each seashore, e.g., Assateague Island (subdirectory asis_mhw) and the associated *.dbf, *.met,

*.shp, *.sbn and *.sbx files. The GeoJPEG files depict location of shoreline; overlaying the

MHW line for several years provides insight to the migration of the shore. Elevation relative to

Mean High Water is color-coded with an embedded legend; elevations below MHW are blue.

Elevation change between years also is color-coded. Erosional areas are in shades of yellow,

orange and red; depositional areas are in greens.

The GeoJPEG files are presented as a series of tiles within each of the three national

seashores; again, four for ASIS and six each for both CAHA and CALO (Fig. 3). The files have

been given intuitive eight-character names. For the elevation tiles, the first four characters

indicate park (ASIS, CAHA, CALO), the fifth and sixth characters indicate tile number (1-4 or

1-6) and the final two characters indicate year (1996-2000). For the elevation change tiles, the

first two characters indicate park, the second two indicate tile number, and the last four

characters denote years of comparison, e.g., files cht19700.jpeg, cht19700.jgw and cht19700.met

contain the elevation change tile for Cape Hatteras, Tile 1, between 1997 and 2000, expressed as

a GeoJPEG with the associated metadata or explanatory text file (*.met).

The gps_data directory houses GPS data as *.dbf, *.met, *.shp, *.sbn and *.sbx files

which depict 1) locations of naturally occurring seabeach amaranth and 2) locations of our

transplant plots for Cape Hatteras (directory caha) and Cape Lookout (directory calo).

0057123





11

Results: Habitat Assessment and Naturally-Occurring Plants

The plant location data are presented in Figs. 4-14. For each site, locations are overlain

on passive LIDAR imagery. Again, the passive LIDAR images are grayscale “pictures” of the

beach and can be used to distinguish areas of different vegetation cover and habitat type.

Numbers of naturally occurring plants of seabeach amaranth have declined dramatically

at the North Carolina national seashores since 1990 (Table 1). Historically, Cape Hatteras

National Seashore harbored significantly greater numbers of plants than did Cape Lookout, a

pattern that has reversed in the last decade. Natural population numbers demonstrate some

unknown pattern of highs and lows, possibly related to storm events or even anthropogenic

influences. Numbers have increased since a statewide low in 2000, particularly at CALO;

however, total numbers at the national seashores are well below the historic averages of 2614

1282 plants (mean standard error) at CAHA and CALO.

In 2003, a total of 49 GPS location points and 54 plants were recorded on all of Cape

Hatteras National Seashore (Figs. 8-10). Most of these plant locations were recorded on

Ocracoke Island by NPS personnel; the remaining plants occurred at sites on the west side of

Hatteras Point. A total of 526 points and 1560 plants were recorded at Cape Lookout National

Seashore (Figs. 11-14). Most of these plants were on the east end of Shackleford Banks. Many

of the other plants were on the west to west-central portions and the southwestern-facing side of

Shackleford, and Cape Lookout Spit of South Core Banks (Table 1, Figs. 11-14).

Methods: Analysis of Total Suitable Habitat

Total suitable habitat as predicted by our model was determined for each tile and each

year at each of the seashores. We asked whether the amount of suitable Amaranthus pumilus

0057124





12

habitat differed between the North Carolina seashores or among years. Tiles 3-6 at CALO did

not have 2000 data available, so comparisons of 2000 data were excluded from the analysis.

Using ArcView GIS 3.2 (ESRI, Redlands, CA) software, a query was made from all the 3 by 3

m2 cells within each pair of grids (elevation and reflectance) for all the cells having both the

characteristics specified by our model. A single new grid was created with cells having either a

value of “0” or “1”. Grid cells that had 1) an elevation value between 0.77 and 2.00 meters

above Mean High Water and 2) had a reflectance value above 170 units were given a value of

“1”, denoting suitable habitat. All other cells were either too high, too low or too vegetated (low

reflectance); these cells were given a value of “0” denoting unsuitable habitat. The total number

of cells in each category was multiplied by 0.0009 (1 cell = 3 x 3 m2 and 1m

2 = 0.0001 ha) to

yield the total areas of suitable and unsuitable habitat in hectares (ha). We attempted to adjust

for differences in seashore size by expressing total suitable habitat area per length of shoreline

(ha/km).

Results: Analysis of Suitable Habitat

Variability in the precision of elevation and reflectance data limits the application of this

method of habitat analysis. The reflectance data are “passive” and rely on ambient light; thus,

different times of day, cloud covers and/or soil moistures result in variation in reflectance values.

LIDAR missions were flown on different days, even within the same year for the same seashore;

different conditions produced naturally variable reflectance data within a seashore for any given

year. Also, significant variation in elevation was seen among data sets for sites where elevation

is static and values should be invariant, such as parking lots or rooftops, making year-to-year

comparisons tenuous and cautionary. Either the data sets will have to be standardized or the

parameters of the model will have to be redefined before certain comparisons of suitable habitat

0057125





13

can be made. This natural variability in the data as well as lack of concurrent or recent LIDAR

can under- or over-estimate the amount of available critical habitat for Amaranthus pumilus,

limiting comparisons between sites or among years. Nevertheless, some general statements

about total habitat area at Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras can be made.

Total suitable habitat for CALO is nearly twice that at CAHA. An average of 532 and

254 ha of suitable habitat occurred at CALO and CAHA, respectively, based on our model, using

all years of available data. Suitable habitat per kilometer of shoreline averaged 6.0 ha/km (n = 2

yr) and 3.7 ha/km (n = 3 yr) at CALO and CAHA, respectively.

The reasons for these differences in total seabeach amaranth habitat between seashores

are as yet unclear, but may be related to 1) number of inlets per seashore and 2) beach aspect.

Inlet areas tend to have wider beaches and potentially more seabeach amaranth habitat. CALO

has six island ends; CAHA only has three. Plants historically have been found in greater

numbers on south-facing beaches. We attempted to compare availability of south-facing beaches

between seashores. Only a few kilometers of any beach actually face in any one direction, so we

estimated the “breaking points” (e.g., breaking points between beaches that faced south to

beaches that faced more east) subjectively. There were only a few sections of shoreline that

needed to be separated into one aspect category or another. We used the distance measurement

tool in ArcView to calculate linear extent of each beach by aspect then used the same methods

reported above to determine ha/km. Cape Lookout Point at CALO reaches further south and has

a longer western face than does Cape Hatteras Point at CAHA (Figs. 15 and 18). Cape Hatteras

Point is relatively short compared to Cape Lookout; almost immediately west of Cape Hatteras

Point, the beach turns south and then south-east facing. At CAHA, about 70% of the shore faces

southeast and only a small section on the west side of the point faces westward (Fig. 15-16). The

0057126





14

only west-facing portion of CAHA is at Cape Hatteras Point, with the exception of the inlets.

Dune stabilization along NC Highway 12 and whether a beach is eroding or accreting may also

affect the amount of suitable habitat. Approximately 21% of the shore at CALO is south- and

somewhat west-facing, although the east-facing shores at Cape Lookout Point have more suitable

habitat: 6.3 and 5.4 ha/km for south- and east-facing beaches, respectively (Fig. 18).

Task 2: Seed and Seedling Reintroduction and Success of Transplants

Amaranthus pumilus is an annual with no vegetative reproduction; as a result,

populations must recruit annually from seed banks either in situ or from other source populations

dispersed by water, wind or from on or offshore sediments distributed by anthropogenic factors.

Seabeach amaranth seed are dormant and must be scarified (the seed coat broken by nicking or

abrasion, Hancock and Hosier 2001) or cold stratified (chilling for weeks) before germination of

any magnitude can occur (Baskin and Baskin 1998, Jolls et al. 2001).

Timing of establishment, as seed or juvenile, is critical to plant success. Moisture

availability in dune ecosystems has been found to affect seedling survivorship (Payne and Maun

1984) and tends to decrease through the growing season (de Jong 1979, Baldwin and Maun

1983). Seedling size (Gerry and Wilson 1995) and transplant date (Billington et al. 1990) also

have been found to affect plant survival. Date of planting and size of transplants influence

survival of greenhouse-reared Amaranthus pumilus (Sellars 2001). During three field seasons,

we asked how site of transplants affects success of seabeach amaranth. We used habitat

delineated by our GIS model based on LIDAR to select sites for transplant in the field. We

compared A. pumilus survival, growth and reproduction in and outside of this defined habitat.

Plant Response to Elevation: Transplants 2001

Methods: Transplants 2001

0057127





15


Stratification, Seed Source, Seed Germination and Propagation of Transplants

Transplants for field tests of our habitat model were reared from seed in controlled

environments. Stratification was accomplished by placing seeds into a moist medium (sand or

paper toweling) in Petri dishes at 5 C for three months (Baskin and Baskin 1998). Some seeds

were obtained through the Agricultural Research Service-Germplasm Resources Information

Network (ARS-GRIN) from David Brenner, Plant Introduction Station, Iowa State University

Ames, IA. These seeds represent genotypes reared from seeds originally collected at Cape

Hatteras in 1989. In addition, during fall 2000, seeds were collected from extant plants from

CALO and reared in the greenhouse for transplant to that national seashore.

The stratified seeds were germinated on moist sand in a Conviron® growth chamber

(Controlled Environments, Inc., Pembina, ND) at 18/6 light/dark photoperiod with a 30/20C

thermoperiod. Seedlings with a radicle at least 1 cm long were transplanted to a media of 50:50

(beach sand:top soil) in Cone-tainers® (Steuwe and Sons, Inc., Corvallis, OR). Seeds of

Amaranthus pumilus are highly germinable (Baskin and Baskin 1998, Hancock and Hosier

2003). We have obtained at least 60% germination from seeds stratified 8 wk; 12 wk

stratification reportedly yield higher germination, nearly 100% (Baskin and Baskin 1998).

Individuals transplanted in laboratory controlled conditions have exhibited no more than 24%

mortality using our laboratory protocol.

The juveniles were maintained in the growth chamber or under light banks until 2 wk

before transplanting when they were moved into a greenhouse under ambient light and

temperature conditions. This was done in an effort to harden off the seedlings prior to

transplanting. Leaf number and rosette diameter were recorded for all juveniles prior to

0057128





16

transplant to select similar-sized plants for field trials and limit the confounding effects of initial

plant size on success, defined as aspects of survival, growth and reproduction.

Plant Response to Elevation 2001: Transplant Site Selection and Experimental Design

In summer 2001, 360 lab-reared juveniles were transplanted to sites at Cape Hatteras and

Cape Lookout National Seashores. Specific sites for reintroduction at Cape Hatteras National

Seashore (CAHA) and Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) were selected from historic

records of plant occurrences as well as results of the GIS/LIDAR analysis. Site selection and

monitoring was coordinated through the National Park Service (NPS) personnel.

LIDAR data were used to guide transplant site selection. “Good” habitat was considered

to be within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW) and in areas

not experiencing strong erosional trends (Sellars 2001). For each of the transplant locations, an

attempt was made to place two plots in “good” habitat (IN plots) and the third outside of “good”

habitat (either above or below the elevation range for “good” habitat, OUT plots). However,

sites selected in the lab and final placement in the field did not always correspond. The lack of

current LIDAR data for all sites and the logistics of working around bird nesting locations

necessitated new site selection in some areas. For example, two sites selected at North Ocracoke

using what at the time was the most current data (1997 and 1998) were in areas that are now in

Hatteras Inlet. Two new sites were selected “by eye”. The new sites were checked against

“good” habitat in the lab. Upon returning to the site, shorebirds had nested in one of the new

sites. Final site selection for North Ocracoke led to the selection of two sites outside of “good”

habitat.

Plots (10 x 12 m2) were established at 12 sites: at CAHA (9 sites, Figs. 15 and 16) and

CALO (3 sites, Figs. 18-19). Some plots were predicted to be poor habitat (OUT), either above

0057129





17

or below the elevational optimum for seabeach amaranth: P3, I3, O2, O3 and L3. Hatteras Point

(plots P1-P3) and Hatteras Inlet (plots I1-I3) were planted on 01 and 02 June 2001. North

Ocracoke (plots O1-O3) was planted on 11 June 2001 and Cape Lookout (plots L1-L3) was

planted on 18 June 2001.

For each plot, 30-2 x 2 m2 cells were delineated by center point within a 10 x 12 m

2 grid.

At each center point, a pre-labeled marker (wooden paint stick with a unique ID based on plot

and position within the plot) was driven into the ground. Transplants were placed approximately

25 cm in front of the marker. Juveniles were maintained in their Cone-tainers® under shade prior

to transplant. The transplants were soaked in a small tub immediately before transplant to

saturate the soil plugs. This facilitated extraction of the soil plugs containing each juvenile. The

Cone-tainers® were held inverted with the plant stem secured by two fingers and the edge of the

container tapped against the edge of a planting trowel until the soil plug with the plant exited.

The plants were then placed in a pre-excavated hole and planted to just below the main rosette.

Plant Response to Elevation 2001: Transplant Census

Monitoring of the cohorts took place twice during the growing season to evaluate

survivorship; each seashore was censused once. The Cape Lookout plots were censused on 2

August 2001; those at Hatteras Point, Hatteras Inlet and North Ocracoke plots were censused on

14 August 2001.

Plant Response to Elevation: Transplants 2002



Stratification, Seed Source Seed Germination and Propagation of Transplants

0057130





18

Seeds were chilled for germination using the methods developed in 2001. The majority

of 2002 transplants at CAHA were from 11 genotypes collected in 2001. There were 15 plants

generated from seeds obtained through the Agricultural Research Service-Germplasm Resources

Information Network (ARS-GRIN) from David Brenner, Plant Introduction Station, Iowa State

University Ames, IA. These seeds represent genotypes reared from seeds originally collected at

Cape Hatteras in 1989. In addition, during fall 2000, seeds were collected from 13 extant plants

from CALO and reared in the greenhouse for transplant to that seashore.

The stratified seeds were germinated using methods used in 2001, e.g., on moist sand in a

Conviron® growth chamber (Controlled Environments, Inc., Pembina, ND) at 18/6 light/dark

photoperiod with a 30/20C thermoperiod. Seedlings with a radicle at least 1 cm long were

transplanted to a media of 50:50 (beach sand:top soil) in Cone-tainers® (Steuwe and Sons, Inc.,

Corvallis, OR).

The juveniles were maintained in the growth chamber or under light banks until 2 wk

before transplanting. At this time, potential transplants were moved into a greenhouse under

ambient light and temperature conditions. This was done in an effort to harden off the seedlings

prior to transplanting. Leaf number was recorded for all juveniles prior to transplant.

Plant Response to Elevation 2002: Transplant Site Selection and Experimental Design

The 2002 study was designed to determine the influence of elevation on plant growth and

survival. Elevations in these plots ranged from 0.30 to 2.70 m above MHW. Plants were

grouped into one of three elevation treatments: below (< 0.77 m above MHW, group = LOW),

within (0.77 – 2.00 m above MHW, group = IN), or above (> 2.00 m above MHW, group =

HIGH) the range predicted by the habitat model. For further verification of the influence of

0057131





19

elevation on plant size, we censused a sub-sample (n = 43/261) of the naturally-occurring plants

on Shackleford Banks (CALO) by laser level on 13 September 2002.

Preliminary site selection was completed using historic records as well as GIS/LIDAR

analysis. Appropriate habitat was considered to be within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m

above Mean High Water (MHW), in areas not experiencing strong erosional trends (Sellars

2001), and in areas of open sand. MHW for the two parks is not the same, therefore, we used

National Ocean Service (NOS) Tidal Benchmarks to calculate local MHW for each park.

LIDAR data were not available for the year 2001. We used traditional survey methods to

establish elevation control points (points of known elevation) at two sites each at CAHA and

CALO. This involved over landing from National Geodetic Survey (NGS) or National Park

Service (NPS) vertical benchmarks with a RL-50A laser level (Topcon™, Paramus, NJ). Final

site selection and monitoring was coordinated through NPS personnel.

In summer 2002, 690 lab-reared juveniles were transplanted to sites CAHA and CALO

(360 and 330, respectively). Plots (10 x 12 m2) were established at 12 sites ea in CAHA (Fig.

15) and CALO (Fig. 19). Transplants at CAHA were planted on 10-11 June 2002 and those at

CALO on 19 June 2002 using methods described for 2001. There were 30 plants per plot with

the exception of three plots on Cape Lookout that were in exceptionally high risk areas due to

low elevation and exposure to overwash; these plots received only 20 plants each

Plant Response to Elevation 2002: Transplant Census

Monitoring of the cohorts took place twice monthly through 10 wk of the growing season

and once monthly thereafter. During each census event, we measured growth (as maximum

diameter in cm), survivorship (presence/absence) and reproductive success (whether or not seeds

had set). Results are based on the last census (week 10).

0057132





20

We also evaluated growth of transplants among treatments as relative change in diameter.

The proportional change in diameter ((diameter at wk 10 – diameter at wk 2)/ diameter at wk 2))

among the three groups was compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey HSD

Post-Hoc Tests. Data were transformed (natural log(x +1)) to achieve homogeneity of variances.

There were 11 plants each from the IN and HIGH groups that were not used for growth analysis,

having been decapitated by either wind, ghost crabs or birds. These plants, however, were alive

and were included in the analyses of survival and seed set. Survival among the three groups and

seed set (Yes/No) for the surviving plants was compared using Pearson Chi-Square. Seed set

(Yes/No) was scored as “Yes” if the plant had set seed at any point during the census period.

Naturally-occurring plants were grouped by elevation as above, natural log transformed and

compared using ANOVA with Post-Hoc tests. All analyses were performed using SPSS™

11.0.1.

Plants Response to Elevation and Distance from Shoreline: Transplants 2003


In 2003, we again used seedlings reared in controlled environments outplanted to 12 plots

each at CAHA and CALO to ask how well our model could predict habitat and plant success of

seabeach amaranth. Greenhouse-reared plants were transplanted to experimental treatment plots

in a replicated paired design to test the effects of elevation (“LOW” vs. “HIGH”) at CAHA and

CALO and distance from shoreline (“NEAR” vs. “FAR”) at CALO.


Seed Source, Stratification, Seed Germination and Propagation of Transplants

Seeds of Amaranthus pumilus again were artificially stratified on autoclaved moist sand

in Petri dishes in the drawer of a laboratory refrigerator at 5-10C for at least 12 wk. We chose

0057133





21

to minimize the number of genotypes used in this study to insure consistency of replicates. Our

aim was to be able to conclude that differences in performance were due to treatments rather than

plant parentage. The majority of 2003 transplants at CAHA were from six different parent plants

genotypes collected in the field in July and December 2001. Transplants to CALO were from

three different parents from seed collected at CALO in September 2002, or the F1 progeny

obtained from selfings of these genotypes in greenhouse propagation.

The stratified seeds were germinated using methods similar to 2001 and 2002, e.g., on

autoclaved moist sand in a Conviron® growth chamber (Controlled Environments, Inc., Pembina,

ND) at 18/6 hr light/dark photoperiod with a 30/20C thermoperiod. Seedlings with a radicle at

least 1 cm long were transplanted to a medium of 100% autoclaved beach sand in Cone-tainers®

(Steuwe and Sons, Inc., Corvallis, OR). Sand was retained in the Cone-tainer using two layers of

landscaping cloth cut as disks and folded into cones.

In 2003, space limitations at ECU and the generosity of Dr. Thomas Wentworth and

others at the Department of Botany, North Carolina State University, provided an alternative

propagation environment. On 4 April 2003, transplants were moved to the Southeast Plant

Environment Laboratories (SEPEL) at North Carolina State University (NCSU Phytotron) and

maintained in a 26/22 C day/night controlled temperature greenhouse on long days. The plants

were subjected to long days using a 9/15 hr light/dark cycle with the dark period interrupted with

a 11-12 µmol s-1

m-2

from incandescent filament lamps. Plants received a standard nutrient

solution once per day. The composition is detailed in the NCSU Phytotron Procedural Manual

(Thomas et al. 2003, http://www.ncsu.edu/phytotron/manual.pdf).

0057134

http://www.ncsu.edu/phytotron/manual.pdf

http://www.ncsu.edu/phytotron/manual.pdf





22

The juveniles were maintained at SEPEL until late May 2003. At this time, potential

transplants were moved into the greenhouse at East Carolina University under ambient light and

temperature conditions approximately 1 wk before transplanting at CAHA and CALO. This was

done in an effort to harden off the seedlings prior to transplanting. Leaf number and diameter in

cm were recorded for all juveniles prior to transplant.

In summer 2003, 648 lab-reared juveniles were transplanted to sites at Cape Hatteras and

Cape Lookout National Seashores (324 at each park). Plants were selected without bias based on

similarity of size determined from leaf numbers of diameters; in all but a few cases, plants were

not flowering. Plots for transplants (6 x 18 m2) were established at 12 sites each at CAHA and

CALO. Transplants at CAHA were planted on 1 June 2003 (Figs. 15-17) and those at CALO on

10 June 2003 (Figs. 17 and 19). For each plot, 27-2 x 2 m2 cells were delineated by center point

within the 8 x 16 m2 grid. There were 27 plants per plot. Juveniles were maintained in their

Cone-tainers® under shade prior to transplant. Greenhouse-reared plants were transplanted using

the methods of 2001 and 2002.


Transplant Site Selection and Experimental Design

Preliminary site selection was completed using historic records as well as GIS/LIDAR

analysis. Again, appropriate habitat (IN) was considered to be within the elevation range of 0.77

– 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), in areas not experiencing strong erosional trends and

in areas of open sand (Sellars 2001). MHW for the two parks is not the same; therefore, we used

National Ocean Service (NOS) tidal benchmarks to calculate local MHW for each park. LIDAR

data were not available for the year 2001, 2002 or 2003; as a result, we used traditional

surveying and GPS base station methods to establish elevation control points (points of known

0057135





23

elevation) at several sites each on CAHA and CALO. Traditional surveying methods involved

over-landing from National Geodetic Survey (NGS) or National Park Service (NPS) vertical

benchmarks with a RL-50A laser level (Topcon™, Paramus, NJ). GPS base stations methods

involved using two Trimble GPS units. Final site selection and monitoring was coordinated

through NPS personnel.

This study was designed to determine first, the influence of elevation and second,

distance from shoreline on plant growth and survival. Elevations in these plots ranged from 0.30

to 2.00 m above MHW. Plants were grouped into one of two elevation treatments: within (IN),

or above (HIGH) the range predicted by the habitat model at CAHA and CALO (Figs. 15, 17 and

19). Six plots at the northern end of CALO Spit were below the predicted elevation range (0.77

– 2.00 m above MHW); these plots were arranged in pairs of NEAR and FAR from shore to test

the influence of risk of overwash on plant success (Fig. 19). Although not presented here, we

also recorded the locations and elevations of a sub-sample of the naturally-occurring plants on

CAHA and at CALO using a laser level from in July and August 2003 for later analyses of the

influence of elevation on plant performance.

Plant Response to Elevation and Distance from Shoreline: Transplant Census 2003

Monitoring of the cohorts took place twice monthly through wk 10 of the growing

season; logistical complications prevented the wk 6 census at CALO, however. During each

census event, we evaluated growth (as maximum diameter in cm), survivorship

(presence/absence), reproductive success (flowering, forming seeds, or seed set) and influence of

herbivores (insect or vertebrate, web worm presence; low, medium or high tissue removal).

Results are based on the last census (wk 10) with the exception of the NEAR vs. FAR plots at

0057136





24

CALO (Fig. 19 . In this case, overwash events eliminated most plants by wk 2; as a result, the

earliest census at wk 2 also was used in the analyses of plant response.

Initial plant diameter was used as a covariate in an ANCOVA to control for any possible

effect of initial plant diameter on subsequent plant size. Data were natural log transformed to

meet the assumptions of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), specifically, homogeneity of

variances and normality; the assumption of parallel lines also was met. Not all of the data were

normally distributed after the transformation, however, the ANCOVA is nevertheless robust to

slight departures in normality. The initial plant diameter data met all the assumptions of the

ANCOVA; hence, untransformed data were used in the analysis. The data for FAR and NEAR

distances from shore at Cape Lookout National Seashore were not included in the ANCOVA,

due to poor survival after an overwash event that occurred before wk 2. Categorical variables

such as survival and reproductive status were analyzed using Chi-Square or Fisher‟s Exact Test.

All analyses were conducted using SPSS 11.5.

0057137





25

Results: Plant Response to Elevation: Transplants 2001

Survival of transplants was highly variable among sites (Fig. 21). Low survival on some

plots with what was originally determined as suitable habitat was probably related to use of older

LIDAR coverage data, i.e., those sites truly were not within the predicted elevation range. For

example, the Cape Hatteras Inlet (I1 IN, I2 IN, I3 OUT) and N. Ocracocke (O1 IN, O2 OUT, O3

OUT) plots were selected based on determination of shoreline elevations and erosional trends

using LIDAR data from 1998, more than two years old. At N. Ocracoke, two of the plots were

completely extirpated by overwash early after transplant. Similarly, lack of recent LIDAR

coverage may underestimate availability of “good” habitat for Amaranthus pumilus transplants.

Plants at Cape Hatteras Point P3 (OUT) plot all survived, despite 1999 data suggesting this site

was “too high”, i.e., above threshold elevations relative to MHW. At Cape Hatteras, based on

1998 LIDAR data, the OUT plot (I3) was completely below the acceptable elevation range for

seabeach amaranth habitat, yet 97% of the transplants survived. When the 1999 LIDAR became

available after transplant, however, half of this OUT plot turned out to be within the elevation

range of habitat for the plant, thus, survival of transplants was high, despite initial predictions.

L1-L3 plots (Cape Lookout) were selected from 2000 LIDAR and showed high survival for IN

plots (L1 IN and L2 IN), complemented by very high mortality as predicted by the design in the

OUT plot (L3 OUT).


Success of Amaranthus pumilus transplants again was affected by site, specifically,

within our predicted elevation range (0.77-2.0 above MHW, IN) or outside this range (LOW or

HIGH). Plant growth, expressed as the proportional change in diameter, differed among the

three elevation treatments (F(2, 360) = 44.41, p < 0.001, Fig. 22). After 10 wk of growth,

0057138





26

transplants were largest at the LOW elevation sites and significant smaller within (IN) and above

(HIGH) our predicted elevation range (Tukey HSD, p < 0.001). Survival among plots also

differed. Plant survival in plots was lowest in LOW (10%), intermediate at IN (63%), and

highest at HIGH (94%) elevation groups (Pearson‟s Chi-Square = 192.422, df = 2, p < 0.001,

Fig. 23). Reproductive success also differed among plots (Pearson‟s Chi-Square = 5.578, df = 2,

p < 0.001, Fig. 24). Nearly 100% (82/85) of the surviving plants in the HIGH group had reached

seed set during the first 10 wk. Conversely, none (0/15) of the plants in the LOW group had

reproduced. It appears that those few plants that do survive at the lowest elevations may exhibit

greater growth, proportionally, and delayed seed set compared to transplants at higher elevations.

The sub-sample of naturally-occurring plants (n = 43/261) on Shackleford Banks

(CALO) was selected to compare sizes of plants within (IN) and outside of our predicted

elevation range (LOW or HIGH). Plants selected had a mean elevation of 1.47 ± 0.08 m (mean

± 1 SE) above Mean High Water. Plants below our predicted elevation range were significantly

larger (F(2, 40) = 21.267, p < 0.001, Fig. 25); however, the difference between plant size at IN and

HIGH elevations was not significant (Tukey HSD, p > 0.05). Interestingly, all of these naturally-

occurring plants in the LOW group were on the sound side of the island, more protected from

overwash than plants on the ocean side and more likely to have survived.


Plant Success: Survival 2003

Success of transplants of Amaranthus pumilus can be extremely high, dependent on

elevation and site or beach dynamics. There was a slight decrease in mean percent survival

throughout the 10 wk census period at both Cape Hatteras (CAHA) (2 June-20 August 2003) and

Cape Lookout (CALO) (11 June-15 August) National Seashores (Figs. 26 and 27). Mean

0057139





27

percent survival of transplants overall at 10 wk was greater than 90% at CAHA (Table 5) and

greater than 85% among the three most northeasterly plots at CALO (Table 6). Survival of

Amaranthus pumilus transplants at wk 10 was significantly greater above (HIGH) than in plots

within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras (X2 = 15.637, df = 1, p < 0.001, Table

5), however, at Cape Lookout, survival of A. pumilus transplants was equal between HIGH and

IN plots (p > 0.04, Fisher‟s Exact Test, Table 6).

Percent survival to 10 wk of Amaranthus pumilus transplants at CAHA was fairly

consistent among all of the northern plots (81-100%) and among the southern plots (five out of

six had 100% survival). The exception was the most southern plot, with only 33.3% survival due

to an early overwash event (Table 7).

Plant survival varied more among plots by beach at CALO than CAHA. Survival of

transplants at five out of the six most northern research plots at CALO ranged from 81-100%,

while one of the plots had 63% survival (Table 8).

Beach location and the associated shoreline dynamics also played a role in Amaranthus

pumilus transplant success at Cape Lookout. An early season overwash concurrent with

astronomical high tides resulted in significant mortality at the northern most plots at CALO;

these plants faced west on Cape Lookout Spit (Fig. 28). Mean percent survival of the A. pumilus

transplants was reduced to less than 35% in research plots farthest (FAR) from shore and less

than 45% in plots nearest (NEAR) to shore at the Cape Lookout Spit due to an overwash event

that took place before the second week of the census period (11 June-25 June 2003). Increased

distance from shore at these lower elevations increased plant survival (Fig. 28). A significantly

greater number of A. pumilus transplants survived to wk 10 among the FAR research plots than

survived in the NEAR research plots (X2 = 23.511, df = 1, p < 0.001, Table 9). There were only

0057140





28

two plots that had surviving A. pumilus transplants, one plot each for the NEAR and FAR

treatment (Table 10).

Plant Success: Phenology and Seed Set 2003

Greater than 60% of the Amaranthus pumilus transplants were setting seed by wk 8 in

research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras

(CAHA) (2 June-28 July) and Cape Lookout (CALO) (11 June-31 July) National Seashores (Fig.

29). Plants were equally likely to have set seed in HIGH and IN plots at both CAHA (p = 1.0,

Fisher‟s Exact Test, Table 11) and CALO (p = 0.497, Fisher‟s Exact Test, Table 12) by wk 10

(11 June to 15 August 2003). Greater than 98% of all transplants were reproductive at some

point throughout 10 wk at both parks (Tables 11 and 12).

Plant Success: Size 2003

Means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed for initial and wk 10

diameters of Amaranthus pumilus transplants at CAHA and CALO (Table 13), for HIGH and IN

elevations at CAHA (Tables 14) and CALO (Table 15), and for FAR and NEAR distances from

shore at CALO (Table 16). The mean diameters of Amaranthus pumilus transplants at wk 10

then were compared between treatments (HIGH vs. IN) at both seashores, factoring out any

possible influence of initial size of plants. There were no significant differences in initial plant

diameters of transplants used at the two seashores (Table 13) although significant differences

were observed due to treatment effects, i.e., location of transplants (HIGH vs. IN, Tables 14-15

and NEAR vs. FAR, Table 16). There were no significant differences in initial transplant

diameters on average between plots at HIGH and IN elevations at Cape Hatteras National

Seashore (F(1, 298) = 0.111, p = 0.739, Table 14), between plots in HIGH and IN elevations at

Cape Lookout National Seashore (F(1, 159) = 1.287, p = 0.258, Table 15) nor between plots at

0057141





29

NEAR and FAR distances from shore at Cape Lookout National Seashore (Table 16, F(1, 160) =

0.945, p = 0.332). Sample sizes differ between sites and treatments due to missing data. Plant

sizes were sufficiently uniform at the onset that any differences by wk 10 could not be attributed

to the starting sizes of transplants.

Plants at higher elevations were significantly smaller than those within the predicted

elevation range of our model, both at CAHA and CALO. Mean diameters of Amaranthus

pumilus transplants at wk 10 (natural log transformed) were significantly different between plots

at HIGH and IN elevations at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (F(1, 272) = 490.240, p < 0.001,

Table 14) and among plots at HIGH and IN elevations at Cape Lookout National Seashore (F(1,

147) = 159.016, p < 0.001, Table 15) after factoring out initial plant diameter. There were too few

plants that survived to wk 10 in the NEAR vs. FAR plots at CALO to allow statistical

comparisons (Table 16).

Herbivory 2003

There was a significant difference in the frequency of herbivory on Amaranthus pumilus

transplants at wk 10 between Cape Hatteras (CAHA) (n = 297) and Cape Lookout (CALO) (n =

178) National Seashores (X2 = 13.94, df = 1, p < 0.001, Table 17). Plants at CALO were more

likely to have evidence of herbivory than those at CAHA (87.8 vs. 72.4%, respectively). There

was no significant difference in the distribution of herbivore intensity (low, moderate, or high)

on A. pumilus transplants at wk 10 between seashores, however (X2 = 2.83, df = 2, p > 0.200,

Table 18).

Transplants were more likely to experience noticeable damage by herbivores in the HIGH

plots (91%) than in the IN plots (51%) at CAHA (X2 = 60.542, df = 1, p < 0.001, Table 19).

There was a significant difference in the degree of herbivory (low, moderate, or high) of

0057142





30

Amaranthus pumilus transplants at wk 10 between HIGH and IN research plots at CAHA (X2 =

39.55, df = 2, p < 0.001, Table 20). Plants within our predicted elevation range were less likely

to have been grazed, and if so, were more likely to have suffered only low herbivory per plant

than were those at higher elevations (92.9 vs. 49%, respectively).

At CALO, Amaranthus pumilus transplants also were more likely to experience

noticeable damage by herbivores in HIGH (98.7%) plots than in IN (71.4%) research plots (X2 =

21.65, df = 1, p < 0.001, Table 21). There also was a significant difference in the degree of

herbivory (low, moderate, or high) that transplants experienced in HIGH and IN research plots at

CALO (p < 0.0005, Fisher‟s Exact Test, Table 22). Again, plants within the elevation range

predicted by our model were less likely to suffer higher levels of herbivory than those above 2.0

m above MHW.

Low survival to wk 10 precluded analyses on herbivory of Amaranthus pumilus

transplants FAR and NEAR from shore at the CALO (Table 10). However, the Chi-Square

analyses were conducted on wk 2 census data for these FAR and NEAR research plots (Tables

23-24) and at this same census date within the study for all other plots at CALO (Tables 25-26)

and CAHA (Tables 27-28).

Herbivory was comparable, independent of distance from shoreline at CALO for young

plants. There was no significant difference in the number of Amaranthus pumilus transplants

exhibiting and not exhibiting noticeable herbivory at wk 2 between FAR and NEAR plots (X2 =

1.52, df = 1, p > 0.05, Table 23). Neither was there any significant difference in the degree of

herbivory (low, moderate, or high) (p > 0.57, Fisher‟s Exact Test, Table 24).

Similarly, early season herbivory did not differ between HIGH and IN plots at CALO nor

CAHA. There was no significant difference in whether transplants exhibited herbivory at wk 2

0057143





31

nor in the distribution of intensity of herbivory (low vs. moderate) between HIGH and IN plots at

CALO (X2 = 0.51, df = 1, p > 0.25, Table 25, and p = 1.00, Fisher‟s Exact Test, Table 26,

respectively).

This limited effect of elevation treatment was observed to some extent at CAHA.

Frequency of herbivory at wk 2 did not differ between HIGH and IN research plots (X2 = 1.52,

df = 1, p > 0.200, Table 27). However, the degree of herbivory (low vs. moderate), was

significantly less for IN plants (X2 = 17.77, df = 1, p < 0.0005, Table 28). Transplants within our

predicted elevation range were more likely to experience low herbivory per plant than were those

at higher elevations (77/80 (96.2%) vs. 65/90 (72.2%), respectively).

Webworms (caterpillars from a variety of moth species), nutria (Myocastor coypus),

ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), and grasshoppers appeared to be the main taxa that caused

damage to Amaranthus pumilus transplants. Several plants were noticeably nipped off directly

above ground level; yet, new growth from these stems often was observed during a later census.

On many occasions, small spiders (species unknown) were seen on transplants covered with

webbing; it is not known what, if any, effect this may have on plant performance.

CONCLUSIONS, APPLICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE

GIS models of habitat, coupled with on the ground field testing and a sound knowledge

of species biology, are promising tools for rare species management and conservation. Our work

can provide the methodologies for analysis of seabeach amaranth habitat through its geographic

range and possibly linkages in time among these spatially disjunct populations, e.g., among

national seashores and other public lands. These methods can potentially be applied to other

taxa, given the predicted habitat for seabeach amaranth is utilized by other species of concern,

0057144





32

notably animals (Fig. 30). We suggest that SBA can serve as an umbrella species, indicating

suitable habitat for other protected taxa of these dynamic coastal systems.

Our models of Amaranthus pumilus habitat based on natural occurrences of seabeach

amaranth plants relative to LIDAR data were extended to include elevation and passive LIDAR

data to indicate vegetation cover. These and some pilot analyses confirm that elevation,

vegetation cover and possibly distance from shore play a role in the germination, establishment

and maintenance of natural plants, including their survival during periods of overwash, as well as

maintenance of a seed source on site and ex situ for population viability. Although these models

performed well at two North Carolina national seashores, the application of these models to other

beaches remains to be tested. Our ability to use LIDAR for plant habitat assessment and

response can be limited by data availability, cost, processing and temporal lags in availability.

Nevertheless, remotely sensed data, specifically LIDAR, hold promise for the preservation and

restoration of Amaranthus pumilus as well as other species of concern. Preliminary analyses

suggest we can predict nearly 90% of the natural plant occurrences based on these variables

derived from remotely sensed data. Our work corroborates that seabeach amaranth thrives in a

narrow elevation range (Bücher and Weakley 1990), spatially and temporally, created and

removed by the dynamism of natural shoreline processes.

Numbers of naturally-occurring Amaranthus pumilus are variable in their trends between

parks. The numbers of plants at Cape Hatteras National Seashore have decreased since 2001

(133 to 54 in 2003) and are orders of magnitude below numbers prior to 1990. In contrast, plant

population sizes have increased in the same few years at Cape Lookout National Seashore (1560

in 2003 from 168 in 2001). Such abundances of seabeach amaranth have not been observed at

CALO since 1994, however, do not match historic highs in 1993. It is unknown whether these

0057145





33

populations are viable long-term or how they might contribute to the recovery objectives for A.

pumilus (self-sustaining populations for 10 yr in six of the nine historic States, USFWS 1996),

particularly in the face of environmental unpredictability in these habitats (Ludwig 1999,

Matthies et al. 2004).

Plant abundances may be related, in part, to habitat availability. We have modeled

habitat using LIDAR and GIS, and demonstrated that suitable areas for seabeach amaranth vary

between parks and years. Preliminary analyses suggest greater amounts of habitat at CALO than

CAHA, possibly related to natural geomorphology (more inlets and south-to-southwest-facing

beaches) and anthropogenic factors (artificial dune construction and maintenance, vehicle

access); however, these patterns are suspect and the inferences speculative at this point. It is

unknown how available habitat relates to population sizes of Amaranthus pumilus. We used GIS

to ask how much landscape matches our predicted model of LIDAR elevation and passive data,

however, assessment of total habitat availability based on our model is limited. Significant

variation in reflectance values between parks, years and flights among days is related to

differences in passive values due to cloud cover, soil moisture and insolation differences. Even

without these data inconsistencies, the trend from our estimates of habitat availability at the two

NC parks among years does not support the trend in plant numbers. Specifically, although our

estimates suggest habitat availability increased at CAHA between 1997 and 1999, plant numbers

decreased from 81 to 56. In contrast, comparisons of LIDAR between 1997 and 1998 at CALO

supports a decrease in suitable plant habitat, yet numbers of naturally-occurring seabeach

amaranth increased, from 53 to 494. The caveat we offer, however, is these “trends” are based

on only two samples, i.e., two seashores and two years. Our collaboration with other agency

offices, including the USGS Center for Coastal and Regional Marine Studies, St. Petersburg, FL,

0057146





34

attempted to access more extensive and more current LIDAR. At this time, differences in

processing methods make it difficult to use these more recent data. Clearly, LIDAR is not yet

sufficiently available, frequent nor standardized to allow comparisons through time among

coasts, yet, new sensors offer promising alternatives, e.g., NASA Experimental Airborne

Advanced Research Lidar (EAARL). LIDAR used in this study was NASA Airborne

Topographic Mapper (ATM) LIDAR which measures only the range to the leading edge of the

first laser reflection. In contrast, EAARL utilizes a hyperspectral scanner with LIDAR that can

record the full reflected laser pulse. EAARL is capable of documenting the vertical complexity

of the surface target "on the fly" during a given survey. This greatly reduces the volume of data

collected over bare terrain, yet enabling the collection of data over forests and shallow water.

EAARL is being used to survey sandy beaches, coastal vegetation and nearshore benthic

habitats, with possible applications including coral community mapping, studies of changes

along sandy coasts, the three-dimensional assessment of plant communities, and shallow

bathymetric sounding (USGS Sound Waves, April 2001, http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/04/).

More to the point, this contrast between trends in habitat availability and plant

abundances confirm again that population dynamics of this rare species involve more factors

than simply availability of unvegetated beach within a limited elevation range. In addition to the

effect on habitat creation and maintenance, stochastic events, which are by definition highly

variable among beaches and parks, also affect dispersal, establishment, survival and seed set of

seabeach amaranth. Survival to 10 wk of our transplants ranged from 33-100% at CAHA and 0-

100% at CALO among sites within a park. Our selection of east-facing beaches and lower

elevations on west-facing sites (CALO) decreased the chances of seabeach amaranth transplant

survival, despite greater distances from shoreline for plots at these sites. Higher erosion rates on

0057147





35

north and east-facing coasts are presumed to be associated with lack of establishment of

naturally-occurring plants as well (Weakley and Bücher 1992). Survival of seabeach amaranth

plants is extremely low, even under natural conditions. Some of the highest levels of mortality

followed prolonged salt water inundation (three tides cycles, Hancock 1995), as we observed at

our CALO Spit sites, and blowing (Hamilton 2000 a,b). Success of greenhouse-reared plants

transplanted to the field can be even lower. Flooding resulted in almost 100 percent mortality of

propagated plants at three of six experimental transplant sites in South Carolina in 1999. At a

fourth site, drifting sand covered most of the transplants, with only 10 of 196 plants

(approximately 5%) plants surviving to produce seed (Hamilton 2000 a,b). In mid-July 2003,

not even 5 wk into our study, of the three seaward plots at North Beach at CAHA, most of one

plot or nearly one-third of the 81 transplants had already perished.

Nevertheless, success of our transplants in Year 2 (2002) and in the final field season

(2003) demonstrated the usefulness of remote sensing data, particularly LIDAR, for evaluation

of seabeach amaranth habitat. Success of our transplants affirmed and reconfirmed the 0.77 –

2.00 m above Mean High Water range for survival and growth of seabeach amaranth. Plants

within and below the elevation range we have delineated grow larger, on average, than do plants

above 2.0 m above MHW, possibly due to greater availability of water and/or nutrients. Yet,

although larger plants can produce more seed (Wigent et al. 2002, Jolls et al. 2002), their

probability of survival can be extremely low due to the higher risk of overwash events. Distance

to shoreline and most importantly, site variability, are two other major factors affecting the

distribution and abundance of seabeach amaranth, both for naturally-occurring plants and

transplants.

0057148





36

Plants at lower elevations may grow larger, however, their risk of mortality due to

overwash is increased. This risk is decreased on wider beaches with a greater distance to

shoreline. Regrettably, low survival of our transplants in the NEAR vs. FAR design, produced

by site variability among beaches, limit our ability to make inferences about the role of distance

from shoreline on plant size or risk of herbivory.

Transplants above our predicted upper limit of 2.0 m above MHW have the potential to

result in inferior populations of smaller plants and fewer seeds. Success of plants above the

upper reaches of our predicted range may also be limited by water availability and biotic factors

such as competition and herbivory. We observed that plants beyond the upper reaches of model

predictions can be just if not more likely to survive to seed set than were transplants with our

predicted elevation range, depending on beach location. Survival and seed set of individual

plants, however, does not necessarily predict success overall at the population-level. In 2003,

survival of plants to wk 10 was equal between HIGH and IN plots for both parks, however,

above the predicted elevations, plants on average were smaller (5.3 vs. 26.6 cm at CAHA and 6.7

vs. 17.1 cm diameter at CALO). These “higher” transplants were slightly more likely to set seed

in 2003 (92.8% vs. 85.2 only at CAHA) as well as in 2002, however, total seed production by

these smaller plants would be reduced. Plants up the beach also were more likely to suffer more

intense herbivory, which also might reduce survival and seed output. These seabeach amaranth

nearer the dunes may also be limited by water availability (C. A. Wigent, in prep.) and other

biotic factors such competition (S. E. Johnson, in prep.).

Habitat, and those dynamic natural forces that create and maintain it, must be preserved

for Amaranthus pumilus conservation and management. The challenge is predicting habitat

based on unpredictable forces. Long-term studies can generate a defensible trend, however, even

0057149





37

the largest data sets can fall short predicting short-term stochastic events. Predicting seabeach

amaranth habitat and plant success poses similar challenges to those confronted by the North

Carolina Division of Coastal Management in their presentation of long-term shoreline erosion

rates. In their words, “These maps are for general information only. They illustrate average rates

of shoreline change over approximately 50 years. The information presented here is not

predictive, nor does it reflect the short-term erosion that occurs during storms.” Despite our

inability to predict it, this stochasticity is a critical part of the physical habitat and species

biology of Amaranthus pumilus.

In addition to habitat, however, a seed source must be available to colonize this habitat

whenever it comes available. As a result, the protection of extant plants, both locally and

throughout the species geographic range, is paramount. The role of the seed bank, whether local

or distant, is critical, although its location may be unknown. There is anecdotal evidence of

plants appearing on dredge spoil, nourished beaches and on sites where the plant was presumed

extirpated for decades. For example, in New York after four decades of absence, the plant now

numbers in the 100‟s of thousands. In New Jersey, after being last seen in 1913, several hundred

to several thousand plants were recorded in 2000-2004; some have speculated that Hurricane

Hugo in 1989 may have transported seeds from larger populations further south, such as North

Carolina. These observations suggest that on and offshore sediments also play majors roles in

seabeach amaranth population establishment and persistence. They further suggest that

conservation of habitat and seed sources need to extend throughout the geographic range of this

plant. The conservation challenge then becomes maintaining habitat and plants where they now

occur, potential habitat were plants might eventually be, as well as unknown sites where seeds

might be.

0057150





38

Our transplant work confirmed our GIS model; seabeach amaranth is dispersed to and

thrives in a narrow elevation range, spatially and temporally, created and removed by the

dynamism of natural shoreline processes. The application and extension of this model needs to

be tested at other sites. A third and most recent Amaranthus pumilus reintroduction occurred in

2003 at a NC Coastal Reserve on Bird Island, Brunswick County, North Carolina, directed by

Dale Suiter of the USFWS, and Kristen Rosenfeld and Dr. Tom Wentworth of North Carolina

State University. The transplant area is entirely within our predicted elevation range, despite its

unique feature of being south-facing. Their work can be used to further test aspects of our

model, although the relationship between mean high water, elevation, distance from shoreline,

and thus risk of overwash, will change further south along the Atlantic Coast.

Our methods, and those of others (Brenner 1999), provide ease of cultivation and

transplant which can provide options for Amaranthus pumilus reintroduction and recovery. The

town of Oak Island has raised 5,000 amaranth plants since 2001, with efforts by USFWS and

David Nash, an NCSU cooperative extension coastal management agent for Brunswick and New

Hanover counties (The Raleigh News and Observer, July 28, 2003). The tractability of this

species in culture, however, cannot replace sound science-based ecosystem management and

habitat conservation. More information on genetic variation and relationships among

populations is needed to understand the population- and genetic-level consequences of

reintroductions, although the predictive certainty needed for certain management applications

may not always be available (Mistretta 1994). Tens of thousands of plants can be propagated,

even from a single genotype, at the rate of several generations per year in the simplest of

controlled environments. Even if we can cultivate and re-introduced rare species, re-

0057151





39

establishment requires restoration of critical ecological and evolutionary processes that provide

and maintain habitat (Montalvo et al. 1997).

Remotely sensed data can allow partial transcendence of some of our limitations of space

and time in the evaluation of a species and its habitat throughout their geographic range.

Inferences from these approaches, however, are only as valid as the data used to make the

inferences and the confirmation of models by field work. GIS analyses can offer synthesis of

many different environmental variables into a more complete evaluation of limits on species

distribution and abundance throughout their ranges in their ecosystems. Ecosystem approaches

to conservation and management of species of concern are advocated by both the scientific

community (Grumbine 1994, 1997, Christensen et al. 1996) and agencies responsible for

endangered species management (Brown and Marshall 1996, Thomas 1996, Clark 1999).

Seabeach amaranth might serve as a conservation “umbrella” for coastal biodiversity of Cape

Hatteras, Cape Lookout and Assateague Island National Seashores. Identification of critical

amaranth habitat using GIS analysis of LIDAR and construction of maps of accreting and

eroding shorelines can be applied to other sympatric species of concern similarly dependent on

natural shoreline dynamics, including colonial nesting shorebirds like the Least Tern (Sterna

antillarum), the Piping Plover (Charadius melodus) and sea turtles.

0057152





40

ORIGINAL PROPOSED SCHEDULE

REVISED PER CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT

( denotes completed task)

Fiscal Year 1 (10/1/2000-9/30/2001)

October 2000 collect seed for Task 2; Transplant Experiment I

(2000 LIDAR collection; fly-overs by

NOAA/NASA/USGS ATM Beach Mapping Project)

October-December 2000 GIS analysis of 1996-1999 beach change (Task 1);

December 2000 stratify seeds of cohort 2000 for Transplant Experiment I

January-April 2001 ongoing GIS analysis

March 2001 begin rearing plants in greenhouse/growth chamber

April 2001 transplant reared plants to field (Task 2-I)

June-September 2001 monitor success of transplants

obtain and process 2000 LIDAR (Task 1)

Draft Interim Report

Fiscal Year 2 (10/1/2001-9/30/2002)

October-November 2001 collect seed from natural and transplant individuals

collect seed for Task 2; Transplant Experiment II

GIS analysis of 1999-2000 beach change (Task 1)

processing and analysis of ASIS LIDAR data; GIS

analysis of ASIS Amaranthus pumilus

analysis of Transplant Population I

December 2001 stratify seeds of cohort 2001 for Transplant Experiment I

0057153





41

30 December 2001 submission of Annual Report 1

January –April 2002 ongoing GIS analysis

March 2002 IAR to NPS Intranet

begin rearing plants in greenhouse/growth chamber II

April 2002 transplant reared plants to field (Task 2-II);

completion of LIDAR/GIS analysis

June-September 2002 monitor success of transplants II

October-November 2002 collect seed from natural and transplant individuals

30 December 2002 submission of Annual Report 2

Fiscal Year 3 (10/1/2002-9/30/2003)

October 2002 collect seed for Task 2; Transplant Experiment III

October-December analysis of Transplant Population II

December 2002 stratify seed of cohort 2002 for Transplant Experiment III

March 2003 IAR to NPS Intranet

begin rearing plants in greenhouse/growth chamber for

Transplant Experiment III (Task 2-III)

April-June 2003 transplant reared plants to field in June-August 2003

monitoring of Amaranthus pumilus populations

September 2003 submission of Draft Final Interim Report

0057154





42

Calendar Year 2004

1 March 2004 IAR to NPS Intranet

15 July 2004 Annual Report Draft Final Report to NPS, including CD-

ROM of CAHA/CHLS/ASIS beach shoreline,

accretion/erosional hotspots, seabeach amaranth

occurrences

13 August 2004 presentation to CAHA and CALO staff

25 September 2004 submission of Final Report

0057155





43

LITERATURE CITED

Baldwin, K. A. and M. A. Maun. 1983. Microenvironment of Lake Huron sand dunes. Canadian

Journal of Botany 61: 241-255.

Baskin, J.M. and C. C. Baskin. 1998. Seed dormancy and germination in the rare plant species

Amaranthus pumilus. Castanea 63: 493-494.

Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annual review of Ecology

and Systematics 10: 351-371.

Billington, H. L., A. M. Mortimer and T. McNeilly. 1990. Survival and reproduction in adjacent

grass populations: Effects of clone, time and environment. Journal of Ecology 78: 1-14.

Brenner, D.M. 1999. Seabeach amaranth germplasm. Chinquapin. 7:14

Brown, D. G., and A. F. Arbogast. 1999. Digital photogrammetric change analysis as applied to

active coastal dunes in Michigan. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 65:

467-474.

Brown, R. S. and K. Marshall. 1996. Ecosystem management in state governments. Ecological

Applications 6: 721-723.

Bücher, M. A. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Status survey of Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus

pumilus) in North Carolina and South Carolina. Unpublished recovery plan.

Chapin III, F. S., B. H. Walker, R. J. Hobbs, D. U. Hooper, J. H. Lawton, O. E. Salsa and D.

Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science 277: 500- 504.

Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J. F.

Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, R. G.

0057156





44

Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the

scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6: 665-691.

Clark, J. R. 1996. The ecosystem approach from a practical point of view. Conservation Biology

13: 679-681.

de Jong, T. M. 1979. Water and salinity relations of California beach species. Journal of Ecology

67: 647-663.

Gerry, A. K. and S. D. Wilson. 1995. The influence of initial size on the competitive response of

six plant species. Ecology 76: 272-279.

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:1-12.

Grumbine, R. E. 1997. Reflections on “what is ecosystem management?” Conservation Biology

11:41-47.

Hamilton, R.D. 2000a. Techniques for the propagation of Amaranthus pumilus. Unpublished

report. Waddell Mariculture Center. Bluffton, South Carolina. 4 pp.

Hamilton, R.D. 2000b. DNR Restoration Program for Amaranthus pumilus. Unpublished report.

Waddell Mariculture Center. Bluffton, South Carolina. 3 pp.

Hancock, T. E. 1995. Ecology of the threatened species seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus

Rafinesque). M.S. Thesis, University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Wilmington,

North Carolina.

Hancock, T. E. and P. E. Hosier. 2003. Ecology of the threatened species Amaranthus pumilus

Rafinesque. Castanea 68: 236-244.

Jolls, C. L., K. E. Trueblood, J. D. Sellars and C. A. Wigent. 2002. Elevation, plant size and seed

set: aspects of the recovery of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) in North

Carolina. Southeastern Biology 49: 188.

0057157





45

Jolls, C. L., A. Cooley, and J. D. Sellars. 2001. Germination ecology of seabeach amaranth,

Amaranthus pumilus, in controlled environments. Southeastern Biology 48: 169.

Lambert, J. D. and M. H. Carr. 1998. The Paseo Pantera project: A case study using GIS to

improve continental-scale conservation planning. In B. G. Savitsky and T. E. Lacher Jr.,

eds. GIS methodologies for developing conservation strategies: Tropical forest recovery

and wildlife management in Costa Rica. Columbia Press, New York.

Lea, C. and S. H. King. 2002. Restoring an Atlantic barrier island endemic. Endangered Species

Bulletin 27: 20-21.

Lopez, W. S. 1998. Application of the HEP methodology and use of GIS to identify priority sites

for the management of white-tailed deer. In B. G. Savitsky and T. E. Lacher Jr. eds. GIS

methodologies for developing conservation strategies: Tropical forest recovery and

wildlife management in Costa Rica. Columbia Press, New York.

Ludwig, D. 1999. Is it meaningful to estimate a probability of extinction? Ecology 80: 298-310.

Matthies, D., I. Brauer, W. Maibom and T. Tscharntke. 2004. Population size and the risk of

local extinction: empirical evidence from rare plants. OIKOS 105: 481-488.

Meredith, A., D. Eslinger and D. Aurin. 1999. An evaluation of hurricane-induced erosion along

the North Carolina coast using airborne LIDAR surveys. CSC Technical Report:

NOAA/CSC/99031-PUB. 30 pp.

Mistretta, O. 1994. Genetics of species reintroduction: applications of genetic analysis.

Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 184-190.

Montalvo, A.M., S. L. Williams, K. J. Rice, S. L. Buchmann, C. Cory, S. N. Handel, G. P.

Nabhan, R. Primack and R. H. Robichaux. 1997. Restoration biology: A population

biology perspective. Restoration Ecology 5: 277-290.

0057158





46

Payne, A. M. and M. A. Maun. 1984. Reproduction and survivorship of Cakile edentula var.

lacustris along the Lake Huron shoreline. The American Midland Naturalist 111: 86-95.

Savitsky, B. G. 1998. GIS. Pages 41-47 in B. G. Savitsky and T. E. Lacher Jr., editors. GIS

methodologies for developing conservation strategies: tropical forest recovery and

wildlife management in Costa Rica. Columbia Press, New York, New York, USA.

Scepan, F. D. and L. L. Blum. 1987. A geographic information system for managing California

condor habitat. Second Annual International Conference, Exhibits and Workshops on

Geographic Information Systems. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote

Sensing American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Falls Church, VA.

Schemske, D. M., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckleshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker and J. G.

Bishop. 1994. Evaluation approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants.

Ecology 75: 584-606.

Sellars, J. D. 2001. Habitat assessment and restoration methodologies for seabeach amaranth

(Amaranthus pumilus, Amaranthaceae). M.S. Thesis, East Carolina University,

Greenville, NC. 94 pp.

Sellars, J. D., and C. L. Jolls. 2000. Methodologies for detecting changes in coastal dune habitat

using Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data. Association of Southeastern Biologists

Bulletin 47: 209. abstr.

Sellars, J. D., and C. L. Jolls. 2001a. Habitat assessment using aerial photography and LIDAR

for a rare plant of the Atlantic coastal dune ecosystem. Coastal GeoTools „01, NOAA

Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC. abstr.

0057159





47

Sellars, J. D., and C. L. Jolls. 2001b. Critical knowledge for the restoration of seabeach

amaranth, Amaranthus pumilus. Southeastern Biology 48: 149. abstr.

Sellars, J. D. and C. L. Jolls. 2002. Remote sensing, GIS and statistical analyses of the habitat

variables controlling seabeach amaranth, Amaranthus pumilus. Southeastern Biology 49:

166. abstr.

Sellars, J. D., C. L. Jolls and C. A. Wigent, 2003. Success of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus

pumilus Raf.) using habitat selection based on light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data.

Southeastern Biology 50: 168-169. abstr.

Sinton, D. S., J. A. Jones, J. L. Ohmann, and F. J. Swanson. 2000. Windthrow disturbance, forest

composition, and structure in the Bull Run Basin, Oregon. Ecology 81: 2539-2556.

Stockdon, H. F., Sallenger, Jr., A. H., List, J. H., and Holman, R. A., 2002. Estimation of

shoreline position and change using airborne topographic lidar data. Journal of Coastal

Research 18: 502-513.

Thibault, D., S. Chalifoux and M. Laperle. 1998. Using satellite imagery as a planning tool for

Harlequin duck inventory. International Journal of Remote Sensing 19: 5-9.

Thompson, J. A., J. C. Bell, and C. A. Butler. 2001. Digital elevation model resolution: effects

on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling. Geoderma 100:

67-89.

Thomas, J. F., R. W. Downs and C. H. Saravitz. 2003. Phytotron Procedural Manual for

Controlled Environment Research at the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratory.

North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 244 (revised). 35 pp.

Thomas, J. W. 1996. Forest Service perspective on ecosystem management. Ecological

Applications 6: 703-705.

0057160





48

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Proposed

threatened status for the plant Amaranthus pumilus (Seabeach Amaranth) Federal

Register. 57(101): 21921-21925.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Amaranthus pumilus determined to be threatened. Federal Register FR Doc. 93-8076,

Washington, D.C. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/frdocs/1993/93-8076.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus

pumilus) Rafinesque. Atlanta, Georgia. 59 pp.

Weakley, A. and M. Bücher. 1992. Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus

Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina, second edition (after Hurricane Hugo). Report

to North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Dept. Agriculture,

Raleigh, and Endangered Species Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville,

North Carolina. 149 pp.

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of the

Earth‟s ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499.

Wigent, C. A., K. E. Trueblood, J. D. Sellars, and C. L. Jolls. 2002. Plant size, fecundity and

remote sensing: Implications for the recovery of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus

pumilus) in North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science. 118:

134-135. abstr.

0057161





49

Figure 1. LIDAR elevation data are recorded by measuring the time required for a laser to reach

the beach surface. Courtesy NOAA Coastal Services Center

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/products/sccoasts/html/tutlid.htm

0057162







50

Figure 2. Selection of transplant sites was facilitated using LIDAR data. Areas in green are

within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), are not

experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover . Potential habitat for

year 2000 and plant occurrences from 2002 have been overlain on year 2000 passive-LIDAR

imagery for the east end of Shackleford. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are

vegetated dune.

0057163





51

Figure 3. Shoreline change analyses (elevation by year and elevation change) is partitioned as a

series of four “tiles” at Assateague Island National Seashore (ASIS).

0057164





52

Figure 3 (continued). Shoreline change analyses (elevation by year and elevation change) is

partitioned as a series of six “tiles” for both Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape Lookout (CALO)

National Seashores.

0057165





53


Island National Seashore overlain on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 2000. Areas

in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), are

not experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Areas of darker gray,

landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune.

0057166





54






0057167





55






0057168





56



in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and

have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not

experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Areas of darker gray,

landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and marsh.

0057169





57

Figure 8. Natural plant occurrences at Hatteras Point (CAHA) for the years 2000 through 2003

overlain on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 1999. Source: ECU and NPS GPS

survey data. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High

Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable


Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and marsh.

0057170





58

Figure 9. Natural plant occurrences at Hatteras Inlet for the years 2000 through 2003 overlain

on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 1999. Source: ECU and NPS GPS survey data.

Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW),

and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not



0057171





59

Figure 10. Natural plant occurrences on Ocracoke Island (CAHA) from 2002 and 2003 overlain

on the LIDAR Passive Reflectance image from 1999. Source: NPS GPS survey data. Areas in

green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have

a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not



0057172





60

Figure 11. Natural plant occurrences at Cape Lookout Point overlain on the LIDAR Passive

Reflectance image from 2000. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m

above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to



marsh.

0057173





61

Figure 12. Natural plant occurrences at Cape Lookout Spit overlain on the LIDAR Passive

Reflectance image from 2000. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m

above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to



marsh.

0057174





62

Figure 13. Natural plant occurrences on the east end of Shackleford Banks (CALO) overlain on






0057175





63

Figure 14. Natural plant occurrences on the west end of Shackleford Banks (CALO) overlain on






0057176





64

Figure 15. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Hatteras Point (CAHA) for the years

2000 through 2003. Areas in green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean

High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable


Potential habitat for year 1999 and plot locations have been overlain on 1999 passive-LIDAR

imagery for Cape Hatteras Point (CAHA). Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are

vegetated dune and marsh.

0057177





65

Figure 16. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Hatteras Inlet (CAHA) for the year 2000

through 2003. Plots were established only during 2000 and 2001. Areas in green are within the

elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value

above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional

trends and support low vegetation cover. Potential habitat for year 1999 and plot locations have

been overlain on 1999 passive-LIDAR imagery for Hatteras Inlet. Areas of darker gray,


0057178





66

Figure

Figure 17. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Lookout Lighthouse area for the year

2000 through 2003. Plots were only established at the Lighthouse area during 2003. Areas in

green are within the elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have

a reflectance value above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not

experiencing strong erosional trends and support low vegetation cover. Potential habitat for year

2000 and plot locations have been overlain on year 2000 passive-LIDAR imagery for the Cape

Lookout Lighthouse area. Areas of darker gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune

and marsh.

0057179





67

Figure 18. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Lookout Point for the year 2000

through 2003. Only during the year 2001 were plots established on the Point.

0057180





68

Figure 19. Locations of outplanting sites (plots) at Cape Lookout Spit for the year 2000 through

2003. No plots were plots established on the Spit during 2000. Areas in green are within the

elevation range of 0.77 – 2.00 m above Mean High Water (MHW), and have a reflectance value

above 170 on a scale from 0 to 255. Suitable habitat areas are not experiencing strong erosional

trends and support low vegetation cover. Potential habitat for year 2000 and plot locations have

been overlain on year 2000 passive-LIDAR imagery for Cape Lookout Spit. Areas of darker

gray, landward of the MHW line, are vegetated dune and marsh.

0057181





69

Figure 20. Directory structure on the accompanying compact disk (CD).

0057182





70

0.87

0.40

1.000.97 0.97 0.97

0.00 0.00

0.90

1.00

0.93

0.03

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

P1 IN P2 IN P3 OUT I1 IN I2 IN I3 OUT O1 IN O2 OUT O3 OUT L1 IN L2 IN L3 OUT

Site

Po

rp

orti

on

Ali

ve

Figure 21. Survival of 2001 transplants of seabeach amaranth to Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and

Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores during approximately two months of the growing

season. P = Cape Hatteras Point (CAHA), I = Cape Hatteras Inlet (CAHA), O = N. Ocracoke

Island (CAHA), L – Cape Lookout Spit (CALO). IN and OUT denote sites within or outside the

predicted elevation range for success of transplants based on 1998 (CALO) and 1999 (CAHA)

LIDAR.

0057183





71

7427415N =

Elevation Group

HighInLow

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

Figure 22. The proportional change in diameter of 2002 transplants from 2 wk to 10 wk

followed a significant negative trend. Transplants to lower elevations were larger than plants in

the next higher elevation group. The IN and HIGH groups contained 11 individuals each that

had been decapitated and were withheld from the analysis.

Pro

port

ional

Chan

ge

in D

iam

eter

(wk 2

– w

k 1

0)

0057184





72

Elevation Group

HighInLow

Pro

port

ion S

urv

ivin

g a

t W

eek 1

0

01.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

00.0

Figure 23. The proportion of Amaranthus pumilus surviving thorough 10 wk in 2002 was

significantly influenced by elevation group. Plants at lower elevations experienced more

frequent overwash and flooding.

n = 15/150 n = 285/450 n = 85/90

0.10 0.63 0.94

Pro

port

ion o

f P

lants

Surv

ivin

g t

o w

k 1

0

0057185





73

Elevation Group

HighInLow

01.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

00.0

Figure 24. Proportion of plants surviving at 10 wk in 2002 that had reached seed set during the

census period.

n = 0/15 n = 191/285 n = 82/85

0.00 0.67 0.97

Pro

port

ion A

live

at w

k 1

0

That

had

Set

See

d

0057186





74

5308N =

Elevation Group

HighInLow

Dia

met

er

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

-20

Figure 25. Box plots (median and interquartile range) of plant diameters (cm) for a sub-sample

of naturally occurring plants on Shackleford Banks (CALO) in 2002. Plants in the lowest

elevation range (< 0.77 m above Mean High Water) were significantly larger than plants at

higher elevations.

0057187





75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Week 10

Census Period

Mea

n P

erce

nt

Surv

ival

Hi

Lo

Figure 26. Mean percent survival throughout 10 wk (02 June –20 August 2003) for Amaranthus

pumilus transplants growing above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape

Hatteras National Seashore. Bars represent the upper ends of 95% confidence intervals (n = 6).

0057188





76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Week 2 Week 4 Week 8 Week 10

Census Period

Mean

Perc

en

t S

urv

ival

Hi Lo

In


pumilus transplants growing above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape

Lookout National Seashore. Bars represent the upper ends of 95% confidence intervals (n = 3).

0057189





77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Week 2 Week 4 Week 8 Week 10

Census Period

Mea

n P

erce

nt

Su

rviv

al

FAR

NEAR


pumilus transplants growing two distances (NEAR and FAR) from shore at Cape Lookout

National Seashore. Bars represent the upper ends of 95% confidence intervals (n=3).

0057190





78

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Week 2 Week 4 Week 6 Week 8 Week 10

Census Period

Perc

en

t S

ett

ing

Seed

CAHA HI

CAHA IN

CALO HI

CALO IN

Figure 29. Phenology of Amaranthus pumilus transplants represented as the percentage of plants

setting seed after 10 wk in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation

range at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape Lookout (CALO) National Seashores. Data were not

collected for CALO during Week 6. The bars represent 95% confidence intervals (for CAHA, n

= 6 and for CALO, n = 3).

0057191





79

Figure 30. Potential application of GIS model of Amaranthus pumilus habitat to animal species

of concern. Habitat is delineated as 0.77-0.22 m above MHW. Locations of nesting animals are

overlain on seabeach amaranth habitat along with plant occurrences (in red): Piping Plover

(Charadius melodus)in brown, American Oystercatcher (in orange) and sea turtles (Caretta

caretta) in blue.

Seabeach Amaranth (2000-2001)

Piping Plover (1999-2000)

American Oystercatcher (1999-2000)

Sea Turtle (2001)

0057192





80

Table 1. Numbers of naturally occurring plants of Amaranthus pumilus at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape Lookout (CALO) National

Seashores since 1985. Empty cells represent no data. Censuses were completed by a variety of personnel and agencies, typically July-

August.

Park Site 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1990 1988 1987 1986 1985

CAHA Hatteras

Point 16 45 37 1 present 9 59 2 2830 800 5200 200

CAHA Hatteras

Inlet 2 75 16 1 present 47 16 62 0 0 252 1718 274 300 450

CAHA N. Ocra-

coke 36 13 0 6 14 1 0 0 250 13310 1409 100 100

CALO N. Core

Banks 1 0 0 2 121 2 1 30 63 82 292 700 0 1

CALO S. Core

Banks 205 69 42 4 0 4 0 0 45 641 1208 0 14

CALO Shackle-

ford 1354 261 126 16 9 369 51 3 1155 948 975 175 2 0

PARK

TOTALS

CAHA 54 133 53 2 56 81 78 1 0 0 3332 15828 6883 600 550

CALO 1560 330 168 20 11 494 53 4 1230 1652 2265 467 702 14 1

TOTAL 1614 463 221 22 11 550 134 82 1231 1652 2265 3799 16530 6879 601

0057193





81

Table 2. A comparison of available Amaranthus pumilus habitat at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape

Lookout (CALO) National Seashore for years with available LIDAR. Available habitat was modeled

as an elevation value between 0.77 and 2.00 meters above Mean High Water and (2) had a reflectance

value above 170. Comparisons used number of pixels (3x 3 m2 cells), area (ha), length of shoreline

(km) and a index as a ratio of to total area of available habitat relative to length of shoreline (km/ha).

Seashore

and Year

Variable CAHA

1997

CAHA

1998

CAHA

1999

CALO

1997

CALO

1998

Total No. Suitable

3 x 3 m2 cells

269,824 256,725 318,406 663,520 518,858

Total Suitable Area

(ha)

243 231 287 597 467

Length of Shoreline

(km)

69.0 69.3 69.5 89.5 90.6

Index of Suitable Habitat

(ha/km)

3.5 3.3 4.1 6.7 5.2

0057194





82

Table 3. Survival of all 2001 Amaranthus pumilus transplants on Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout

National Seashores. There were 90 transplants in three plots (30 per plot) at each of the four sites.

Site Number of

Transplants Alive

Proportion of

Transplants Alive

Hatteras Point 68 0.76

Hatteras Inlet 87 0.97

North Ocracoke 27 0.30

Cape Lookout 59 0.66

0057195





83

Table 4. Survival of 2001 Amaranthus pumilus transplants by placement in or out of “good” habitat

for 12 plots as of 2 August 2001 at Cape Lookout and 14 August 2001 Cape Hatteras National

Seashores.

Habitat # Alive/

# Planted Proportion

IN (n = 7) 154/210 0.73

OUT (n= 5) 87/150 0.58

0057196





84

Table 5. Number and percent survival to 10 wk (01 June to 20 August 2003) of Amaranthus pumilus

transplants in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape

Hatteras National Seashore. Numbers in parentheses represent the expected values used in Pearson‟s

Chi-Square Analysis.

Elevation Number

Planted

Number

Surviving

Number Not

Surviving

Percent

Survival

HIGH 162 158 (148) 4 (14) 97.53

IN 162 138 (148) 24 (14) 85.19

Total 324 296 28 Mean 91.36

95% CI ±12.09

n 2

0057197





85

Table 6. Number and percent survival to 10 wk of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots

above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore.

Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact Test.

Elevation Number

Planted

Number

Surviving

Number Not

Surviving

Percent

Survival

HIGH 81 75 6 92.59

IN 81 78 3 92.30

Total 162 153 9 Mean

92.45

95% CI 3.63

n 2

0057198





86

Table 7. Percent survival to 10 wk (01 June to 20 August 2003) of Amaranthus pumilus transplants

in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras

National Seashore (CAHA). Plots are arranged from the most northern (North 1) to most southern

(South 3) beach position.

Beach

Position Elevation

Number

Planted

Number

Alive

Percent

Survival

North 1 HIGH 27 26 96.3

North 1 LOW 27 27 100

North 2 HIGH 27 26 96.3

North 2 LOW 27 26 96.3

North 3 HIGH 27 25 92.59

North 3 LOW 27 22 81.48

South 1 HIGH 27 27 100

South 1 LOW 27 27 100


South 2 LOW 27 27 100


South 3 LOW 27 9 33.33

Total 324 296 Mean 91.36

95%

CI ± 10.77

n 12

0057199





87


in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout

National Seashore (CALO). The six plots are arranged from the most northern (North 1) to most

southern (North 3) beach position.

Beach

Position Elevation

Number

Planted

Number

Alive

Percent

Survival

North 1 HIGH 27 22 81.48

North 1 LOW 27 27 100

North 2 HIGH 27 24 88.89

North 2 LOW 27 24 88.89

North 3 HIGH 27 17 62.96

North 3 LOW 27 26 96.3

Total 162 140 Mean 86.42

95% CI ±10.55

n 6

0057200





88

Table 9. Number and percent survival to 10 wk of Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots

two distances from shore (FAR and Near) at Cape Lookout National Seashore. Numbers in

parentheses represent the expected values used in Pearson Chi-Square Analysis.

Distance

From Shore

n Number

Surviving

Number Not

Surviving

Percent

Survival

FAR 81 25 (13.5) 56 (67.5) 30.86

NEAR 81 2 (13.5) 79 (67.5) 2.47

Total 162 27 135 Mean 16.67

95% CI 27.83

n 2

0057201





89


in research plots two distances from shore (NEAR and FAR) at Cape Lookout National Seashore.

Plots are arranged from the most northern (North 1) to the most southern (North 3) beach position.

Beach

Position

Distance

From

Shore

Number

Planted

Number

Alive

Percent

Survival

North 1 FAR 27 0 0

North 1 NEAR 27 0 0

North 2 FAR 27 0 0

North 2 NEAR 27 2 7.41

North 3 FAR 27 25 92.59

North 3 NEAR 27 0 0

Total 162 26 Mean 16.67

95% CI ±29.86

n 6

0057202





90


research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National

Seashore. Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact Test.

Elevation n Number

Setting Seed

Number Not

Setting Seed Percent

Setting Seed

HIGH 162 158 4 97.53

IN 162 158 4 97.53

Total 324 316 8 Mean 97.53

St. Dev. 0

n 2

0057203





91


research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National

Seashore. Expected values are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact Test.

Elevation n Number

Setting Seed

Number Not

Setting Seed

Percent

Setting Seed

HIGH 162 81 0 100.00

IN 162 79 2 97.53

Total 324 160 2 Mean 98.77

95% CI 2.43

n 2

0057204





92

Table 13. Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the initial and final measured diameters (cm)

of Amaranthus pumilus transplants within research plots at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) and Cape Lookout

(CALO) National Seashores.

Initial Diameter (cm) Week 10 Diameter (cm)

Park n Mean 95% CI n Mean 95% CI

CAHA 300

(24 missing)

3.61 ± 0.06 297 16.52 ± 1.58

CALO 323

(1 missing)

4.53 ± 0.05 178 11.63 ± 1.12

0057205





93

Table 14. Mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the initial and final measured diameters (cm) of

Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots above (HIGH) and within (IN) the predicted

elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.


Beach

Location Elevation n Mean 95% CI n Mean 95% CI

North 1 HIGH 25 3.5 ± 0.18 26 7 ± 1.56

North 1 IN 25 3.6 ± 0.24 27 25.1 ± 3.28

North 2 HIGH 25 3.6 ± 0.21 25 7.4 ± 1.97

North 2 IN 25 3.6 ± 0.20 22 12.7 ± 3.06

North 3 HIGH 25 3.8 ± 0.24 27 6.4 ± 1.93

North 3 IN 25 3.7 ± 0.22 26 25.7 ± 2.91

South 1 HIGH 25 3.6 ± 0.15 27 4.6 ± 0.60

South 1 IN 25 3.4 ± 0.16 27 45.7 ± 2.86

South 2 HIGH 24 3.6 ± 0.21 27 11.1 ± 1.09

South 2 IN 26 3.6 ± 0.23 27 26.8 ± 3.38

South 3 HIGH 25 3.6 ± 0.22 27 5.3 ± 0.75

South 3 IN 25 3.7 ± 0.18 9 23.5 ± 3.65

0057206





94


Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots within above (HIGH) and (IN) the predicted

elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore.


Beach

Position Elevation n Mean 95% CI n Mean 95% CI

North 1 HIGH 27 4.5 ± 0.16 26 5.1 ± 0.53

North 1 IN 27 4.7 ± 0.18 26 19.6 ± 2.39

North 2 HIGH 27 4.5 ± 0.15 25 6 ± 0.57

North 2 IN 26 4.6 ± 0.19 24 9.4 ± 1.04

North 3 HIGH 27 4.6 ± 0.17 23 9.1 ± 2.26

North 3 IN 27 4.5 ± 0.20 27 22.3 ± 2.37

0057207





95


Amaranthus pumilus transplants in research plots two distances from shore (NEAR vs. FAR) at Cape

Lookout National Seashore.


Beach

Position

Distance

From

Shore

n Mean 95% CI n Mean 95% CI

North 1 Far 27 4.5 ± 0.19 0 ± 0.00

North 1 Near 27 4.5 ± 0.24 0 ± 0.00

North 2 Far 27 4.4 ± 0.17 0 ± 0.00

North 2 Near 27 4.5 ± 0.19 2 11.1 ± 10.58

North 3 Far 27 4.4 ± 0.18 25 8.7 ± 0.79

North 3 Near 27 4.6 ± 0.17 0 ± 0.00

0057208





96

Table 17. 2 x 2 Chi-Square contingency table of the number of Amaranthus pumilus transplants with

or without observed herbivory during wk 10 at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) (n = 297) and Cape Lookout

(CALO) (n = 178) National Seashores. Expected values are shown within parentheses.

Park

Number of

Plants With

Herbivory

Number of

Plants Without

Herbivory Row Totals

CAHA 215 (231.35) 82 (65.65) 297

CALO 155 (138.65) 23 (39.35) 178

Column Totals 370 105 475

0057209





97


exhibiting different degrees of herbivory during wk 10 at Cape Hatteras (CAHA) (n = 297) and Cape

Lookout (CALO) (n = 178) National Seashores. Expected values are shown within parentheses.

Park

Number of

Plants with

Low

Herbivory

Number of

Plants with

Moderate

Herbivory

Number of

Plants with

High


CAHA 136 (143.53) 61 (55.20) 18 (16.27) 215

CALO 111 (103.47) 34 (39.80) 10 (11.73) 155

Column Totals 247 95 28 370

0057210





98


or without observed herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n = 159) and within

(IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA). Expected

values are shown within parentheses.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Herbivory

Number of

Plants Without


HIGH 145 (115.10) 14 (43.90) 159

IN 70 (99.90) 68 (38.10) 138


0057211





99


exhibiting different degrees of herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n = 159) and

within (IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA).

Expected values are shown within parentheses.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Low

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

Moderate

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

High

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 71 (91.72) 56 (41.14) 18 (12.14) 145

IN 65 (44.28) 5 (19.86) 0 (5.86) 70


0057212





100


or without observed herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n = 74) and within (IN)

(n = 77) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). Expected values

are shown within parentheses.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Herbivory

Number of

Plants Without

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 73 (62.73) 1 (11.27) 74

IN 55 (65.27) 22 (11.73) 77


0057213





101


different degrees of herbivory during wk 10 in research plots above (HIGH) (n = 74) and within (IN)


are not presented for data analyzed using Fisher‟s Exact Test.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Low

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

Moderate

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

High

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 40 25 8 73

IN 55 0 0 55


0057214





102


or without observed herbivory during wk 2 in research plots two distances from shore (FAR (n = 62)

and NEAR (n = 27)) at Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO). Expected values are shown within

parentheses.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Herbivory

Number of

Plants

Without

Herbivory

Row Totals

FAR 39 (39.01) 23 (22.99) 62

NEAR 17 (16.99) 10 (10.01) 27


0057215





103


different degrees of herbivory during wk 2 in research plots two distances from shore (FAR (n = 62)

and NEAR (n = 27)) at Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO).

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Low

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

Moderate

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

High

Herbivory

Row Totals

FAR 37 5 3 45

NEAR 16 1 0 17


0057216





104




are shown within parentheses.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Herbivory

Number of

Plants Without

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 50 (47.80) 30 (32.20) 80

IN 45 (47.20) 34 (31.80) 79


0057217





105



within (IN) (n = 77) the predicted elevation range at Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO).


Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Low Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

Moderate

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 10 (9.62) 0 (0.38) 10

IN 15 (15.38) 1 (0.62) 16


0057218





106



(n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA). Expected

values are shown within parentheses.

Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Herbivory

Number of

Plants Without

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 90 (84.47) 70 (75.53) 160

IN 80 (85.53) 82 (76.47) 162


0057219





107



within (IN) (n = 138) the predicted elevation range at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA).


Elevation

Number of

Plants With

Low

Herbivory

Number of

Plants With

Moderate

Herbivory

Row Totals

HIGH 65 (75.18) 25 (14.82) 90

IN 77 (66.82) 3 (13.18) 80

Column Total 142 28 170

0057220





108

Appendix A. File listing of contents of CD (\cd_data) expanded from Figure 20.

Directory of cd_data\arc_ext

08/19/1999 09:01 AM 4,468 JFIF.AVX

07/17/1998 06:31 AM 108,544 jfif.dll

2 File(s) 113,012 bytes

Directory of \cd_data\geojpegs\asis\tile1

11/08/2002 04:07 PM 96 ait19600.jgw

11/13/2002 12:03 PM 1,585,836 ait19600.jpg

12/19/2003 12:20 PM 14,005 ait19600.met

11/13/2002 10:52 AM 98 asist100.jgw

11/13/2002 11:59 AM 3,583,434 asist100.jpg

11/19/2002 12:48 PM 13,528 asist100.met

11/12/2002 11:15 AM 98 asist196.jgw

11/13/2002 12:00 PM 1,980,598 asist196.jpg

11/19/2002 11:54 AM 13,528 asist196.met

11/12/2002 01:42 PM 98 asist197.jgw

11/13/2002 12:01 PM 1,544,583 asist197.jpg

11/19/2002 12:48 PM 13,528 asist197.met

11/13/2002 10:37 AM 98 asist198.jgw

11/13/2002 12:02 PM 1,662,751 asist198.jpg

11/19/2002 12:47 PM 13,528 asist198.met

15 File(s) 10,425,807 bytes


11/12/2002 12:40 PM 96 ait29600.jgw

11/13/2002 12:04 PM 1,299,699 ait29600.jpg

12/19/2003 12:22 PM 14,008 ait29600.met

11/13/2002 11:27 AM 98 asist200.jgw

11/13/2002 12:06 PM 3,491,048 asist200.jpg

11/19/2002 12:26 PM 13,531 asist200.met

11/13/2002 11:26 AM 98 asist296.jgw

11/13/2002 12:07 PM 1,658,318 asist296.jpg

11/19/2002 12:47 PM 13,531 asist296.met

11/13/2002 11:27 AM 98 asist297.jgw

11/13/2002 12:08 PM 1,664,719 asist297.jpg

11/19/2002 12:21 PM 13,535 asist297.met

11/13/2002 11:27 AM 98 asist298.jgw

11/13/2002 12:08 PM 1,274,497 asist298.jpg

11/19/2002 12:23 PM 13,531 asist298.met

15 File(s) 9,456,905 bytes


11/13/2002 11:51 AM 96 ait39600.jgw

11/13/2002 12:15 PM 1,427,592 ait39600.jpg

12/19/2003 12:22 PM 14,006 ait39600.met

11/13/2002 11:53 AM 98 asist300.jgw

11/13/2002 12:14 PM 2,837,759 asist300.jpg

11/19/2002 12:42 PM 13,529 asist300.met

11/13/2002 11:53 AM 98 asist396.jgw

11/13/2002 12:14 PM 1,584,371 asist396.jpg

02/05/2003 05:05 PM 13,529 asist396.met

11/13/2002 11:53 AM 98 asist397.jgw

11/13/2002 12:13 PM 1,448,852 asist397.jpg

11/19/2002 12:40 PM 13,531 asist397.met

11/13/2002 11:53 AM 98 asist398.jgw

11/13/2002 12:12 PM 1,174,376 asist398.jpg

11/19/2002 12:43 PM 13,529 asist398.met

15 File(s) 8,541,562 bytes


11/13/2002 11:46 AM 96 ait49600.jgw

11/13/2002 01:50 PM 1,279,226 ait49600.jpg

12/19/2003 12:23 PM 14,003 ait49600.met

11/13/2002 11:47 AM 96 asist400.jgw

11/13/2002 01:52 PM 2,211,101 asist400.jpg

11/19/2002 12:34 PM 13,526 asist400.met

11/13/2002 11:47 AM 96 asist496.jgw

11/13/2002 01:53 PM 1,558,961 asist496.jpg

11/19/2002 12:28 PM 13,526 asist496.met

11/13/2002 11:47 AM 96 asist497.jgw

11/13/2002 01:53 PM 1,351,209 asist497.jpg

11/19/2002 12:31 PM 13,526 asist497.met

11/13/2002 11:47 AM 96 asist498.jgw

11/13/2002 01:54 PM 1,107,990 asist498.jpg

11/19/2002 12:45 PM 13,526 asist498.met

15 File(s) 7,577,074 bytes

0057221





109

Appendix A (continued).

Directory of \cd_data\geojpegs\caha\tile_1

02/05/2003 11:35 PM 96 cahat100.jgw

02/05/2003 11:38 PM 1,102,826 cahat100.jpg

01/29/2003 06:15 PM 12,492 cahat100.met

01/08/2002 02:38 PM 96 cahat197.jgw

02/05/2003 12:19 PM 1,491,533 cahat197.jpg

02/11/2003 09:53 AM 13,736 cahat197.met

01/08/2002 02:54 PM 96 cahat198.jgw

01/08/2002 03:05 PM 1,192,714 cahat198.jpg

01/29/2003 06:34 PM 13,536 cahat198.met

12/04/2002 11:39 AM 96 cahat199.jgw

12/04/2002 11:38 AM 1,118,044 cahat199.jpg

01/29/2003 06:49 PM 13,536 cahat199.met

02/05/2003 02:21 PM 96 cht19700.jgw

02/05/2003 02:50 PM 1,085,071 cht19700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:23 PM 14,013 cht19700.met

15 File(s) 6,057,981 bytes


02/05/2003 11:50 PM 96 cahat200.jgw

02/05/2003 11:55 PM 919,503 cahat200.jpg

02/06/2003 12:14 AM 12,491 cahat200.met

01/08/2002 03:42 PM 96 cahat297.jgw

02/05/2003 01:21 PM 1,280,049 cahat297.jpg

02/11/2003 09:58 AM 13,741 cahat297.met

01/08/2002 03:45 PM 96 cahat298.jgw

01/08/2002 03:49 PM 988,590 cahat298.jpg

01/29/2003 06:37 PM 13,535 cahat298.met

12/04/2002 12:00 PM 96 cahat299.jgw

12/04/2002 10:15 AM 912,252 cahat299.jpg

01/29/2003 06:37 PM 13,535 cahat299.met

02/05/2003 02:30 PM 98 cht29700.jgw

02/05/2003 02:59 PM 997,339 cht29700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:24 PM 14,012 cht29700.met

15 File(s) 5,165,529 bytes


02/05/2003 11:50 PM 94 cahat300.jgw

02/06/2003 12:00 AM 781,933 cahat300.jpg

02/06/2003 12:16 AM 12,492 cahat300.met

01/08/2002 04:07 PM 94 cahat397.jgw

02/05/2003 01:23 PM 1,042,845 cahat397.jpg

02/11/2003 09:57 AM 13,739 cahat397.met

01/08/2002 04:08 PM 96 cahat398.jgw

01/08/2002 04:10 PM 1,268,655 cahat398.jpg

01/29/2003 06:44 PM 13,536 cahat398.met

12/04/2002 12:01 PM 96 cahat399.jgw

12/04/2002 10:20 AM 812,317 cahat399.jpg

01/29/2003 06:45 PM 13,536 cahat399.met

02/05/2003 02:30 PM 96 cht39700.jgw

02/05/2003 03:00 PM 915,804 cht39700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:24 PM 14,013 cht39700.met

15 File(s) 4,889,346 bytes


02/05/2003 11:51 PM 94 cahat400.jgw

02/06/2003 12:02 AM 590,200 cahat400.jpg

02/06/2003 12:18 AM 12,491 cahat400.met

01/08/2002 04:46 PM 94 cahat497.jgw

02/05/2003 01:59 PM 837,904 cahat497.jpg

02/11/2003 09:56 AM 13,738 cahat497.met

02/05/2003 11:51 PM 94 cahat498.jgw

01/08/2002 05:03 PM 938,063 cahat498.jpg

01/29/2003 06:46 PM 13,535 cahat498.met

12/04/2002 12:59 PM 96 cahat499.jgw

12/04/2002 10:23 AM 703,556 cahat499.jpg

01/29/2003 06:46 PM 13,535 cahat499.met

02/05/2003 02:31 PM 96 cht49700.jgw

02/05/2003 03:02 PM 691,672 cht49700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:24 PM 14,012 cht49700.met

15 File(s) 3,829,180 bytes

0057222





110



02/05/2003 11:52 PM 94 cahat500.jgw

02/06/2003 12:03 AM 1,294,108 cahat500.jpg

02/06/2003 12:19 AM 12,492 cahat500.met

01/08/2002 05:50 PM 96 cahat597.jgw

02/05/2003 01:29 PM 885,366 cahat597.jpg

02/11/2003 09:59 AM 13,734 cahat597.met

01/08/2002 05:50 PM 96 cahat598.jgw

01/09/2002 10:57 AM 801,854 cahat598.jpg

01/29/2003 06:47 PM 13,536 cahat598.met

12/04/2002 12:03 PM 96 cahat599.jgw

12/04/2002 10:26 AM 915,997 cahat599.jpg

01/29/2003 06:47 PM 13,536 cahat599.met

02/05/2003 02:31 PM 98 cht59700.jgw

02/05/2003 03:04 PM 1,205,700 cht59700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:25 PM 14,013 cht59700.met

15 File(s) 5,170,816 bytes


02/05/2003 11:52 PM 95 cahat600.jgw

02/06/2003 12:05 AM 1,422,746 cahat600.jpg

02/06/2003 12:20 AM 12,492 cahat600.met

01/09/2002 11:23 AM 95 cahat697.jgw

02/05/2003 01:36 PM 914,932 cahat697.jpg

02/11/2003 10:00 AM 13,734 cahat697.met

01/09/2002 11:23 AM 95 cahat698.jgw

01/09/2002 11:27 AM 839,678 cahat698.jpg

01/29/2003 06:48 PM 13,536 cahat698.met

12/04/2002 12:05 PM 96 cahat699.jgw

12/04/2002 10:35 AM 735,916 cahat699.jpg

01/29/2003 06:48 PM 13,536 cahat699.met

02/05/2003 02:32 PM 97 cht69700.jgw

02/05/2003 03:06 PM 1,147,819 cht69700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:25 PM 14,013 cht69700.met

15 File(s) 5,128,880 bytes

Directory of \cd_data\geojpegs\calo\tile_1

12/11/2001 2:13 PM 95 calot100.jgw

12/11/2001 2:13 PM 763,878 calot100.jpg

02/05/2003 04:25 PM 13,301 calot100.met

12/12/2001 1:20 AM 95 calot197.jgw

01/07/2002 10:18 AM 702,465 calot197.jpg

02/05/2003 04:27 PM 13,518 calot197.met

12/12/2001 1:41 AM 95 calot198.jgw

01/07/2002 10:22 AM 704,655 calot198.jpg

02/05/2003 04:28 PM 13,518 calot198.met

11/04/2002 09:17 AM 95 calot199.jgw

11/04/2002 10:49 AM 829,475 calot199.jpg

02/05/2003 04:29 PM 13,534 calot199.met

01/09/2002 02:55 PM 95 clt19700.jgw

01/17/2002 11:31 AM 669,487 clt19700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:26 PM 17,220 clt19700.met

15 File(s) 3,741,526 bytes


01/16/2002 04:39 PM 93 calot200.jgw

01/16/2002 04:50 PM 1,254,838 calot200.jpg

02/05/2003 04:32 PM 13,525 calot200.met

01/16/2002 04:40 PM 95 calot297.jgw

01/16/2002 04:50 PM 1,265,546 calot297.jpg

11/26/2002 04:32 PM 13,525 calot297.met

01/16/2002 04:40 PM 95 calot298.jgw

01/16/2002 04:49 PM 999,460 calot298.jpg

11/26/2002 04:35 PM 13,495 calot298.met

11/04/2002 09:19 AM 95 calot299.jgw

11/04/2002 11:09 AM 1,005,326 calot299.jpg

11/26/2002 04:29 PM 13,535 calot299.met

01/16/2002 04:46 PM 97 clt29700.jgw

01/17/2002 11:31 AM 1,211,252 clt29700.jpg

12/19/2003 12:26 PM 14,013 clt29700.met

15 File(s) 5,804,990 bytes

0057223





111



01/07/2002 01:06 PM 96 calot397.jgw

01/07/2002 01:12 PM 1,386,817 calot397.jpg

02/05/2003 04:13 PM 13,520 calot397.met

01/07/2002 12:56 PM 94 calot398.jgw

01/07/2002 01:13 PM 1,125,891 calot398.jpg

02/05/2003 04:37 PM 13,520 calot398.met

11/04/2002 09:23 AM 96 calot399.jgw

11/04/2002 11:14 AM 1,190,958 calot399.jpg

11/26/2002 04:40 PM 13,536 calot399.met

11/04/2002 09:23 AM 96 clt39799.jgw

11/04/2002 11:30 AM 1,210,397 clt39799.jpg

12/19/2003 12:27 PM 14,013 clt39799.met

12 File(s) 4,969,034 bytes


01/07/2002 03:19 PM 96 calot497.jgw

01/07/2002 03:31 PM 1,810,841 calot497.jpg

02/05/2003 04:18 PM 13,520 calot497.met

01/07/2002 03:26 PM 94 calot498.jgw

01/07/2002 03:31 PM 1,544,167 calot498.jpg

02/05/2003 04:20 PM 13,519 calot498.met

11/04/2002 09:30 AM 96 calot499.jgw

11/04/2002 11:18 AM 1,554,431 calot499.jpg

02/05/2003 04:22 PM 13,536 calot499.met

11/04/2002 09:30 AM 96 clt49799.jgw

11/04/2002 11:33 AM 1,620,981 clt49799.jpg

12/19/2003 12:27 PM 14,015 clt49799.met

12 File(s) 6,585,392 bytes


01/07/2002 03:59 PM 96 calot597.jgw

01/07/2002 04:03 PM 1,597,830 calot597.jpg

02/05/2003 04:47 PM 13,520 calot597.met

01/07/2002 03:51 PM 96 calot598.jgw

01/07/2002 04:04 PM 1,393,454 calot598.jpg

02/05/2003 04:48 PM 13,520 calot598.met

11/04/2002 09:39 AM 96 calot599.jgw

11/04/2002 11:22 AM 1,392,337 calot599.jpg

02/05/2003 04:49 PM 13,536 calot599.met

11/04/2002 09:39 AM 96 clt59799.jgw

11/04/2002 11:38 AM 1,513,794 clt59799.jpg

12/19/2003 12:27 PM 14,013 clt59799.met

12 File(s) 5,952,388 bytes


01/07/2002 05:18 PM 96 calot697.jgw

01/07/2002 05:12 PM 1,443,315 calot697.jpg

02/05/2003 04:53 PM 13,520 calot697.met

01/07/2002 05:19 PM 96 calot698.jgw

01/07/2002 05:15 PM 1,562,229 calot698.jpg

02/05/2003 04:54 PM 13,520 calot698.met

11/04/2002 09:51 AM 96 calot699.jgw

11/04/2002 11:26 AM 1,202,277 calot699.jpg

11/26/2002 05:24 PM 13,536 calot699.met

11/04/2002 09:51 AM 96 clt69799.jgw

11/04/2002 11:41 AM 1,436,461 clt69799.jpg

12/19/2003 12:27 PM 14,013 clt69799.met

12 File(s) 5,699,255 bytes

0057224





112


Directory of \cd_data\gps_data\caha

12/05/2002 11:53 AM 244 caha2000.dbf

12/06/2002 12:28 PM 6,660 caha2000.met

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 164 caha2000.sbn

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 124 caha2000.sbx

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 156 caha2000.shp

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 116 caha2000.shx

12/05/2002 11:52 AM 2,706 caha2001.dbf

12/06/2002 12:27 PM 6,660 caha2001.met

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 8,764 caha2001.sbn

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 156 caha2001.sbx

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 1,584 caha2001.shp

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 524 caha2001.shx

12/04/2003 10:40 AM 7,994 caha2002.dbf

12/06/2002 12:29 PM 6,660 caha2002.met

12/05/2002 11:25 AM 9,308 caha2002.sbn

12/05/2002 11:25 AM 164 caha2002.sbx

12/05/2002 11:25 AM 3,460 caha2002.shp

12/05/2002 11:25 AM 1,060 caha2002.shx

12/04/2003 11:20 AM 2,779 caha2003.dbf

09/09/2003 12:15 PM 6,660 caha2003.met

09/09/2003 12:08 PM 7,980 caha2003.sbn

09/09/2003 12:08 PM 188 caha2003.sbx

09/09/2003 12:08 PM 1,640 caha2003.shp

09/09/2003 12:08 PM 540 caha2003.shx

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 3,762 cahaplot.dbf

09/09/2003 12:52 PM 6,495 cahaplot.met

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 5,732 cahaplot.sbn

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 212 cahaplot.sbx

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 4,132 cahaplot.shp

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 1,252 cahaplot.shx


0057225





113


Directory of \cd_data\gps_data\calo

11/25/2003 01:16 PM 20,182 calo2000.dbf

12/05/2002 03:18 PM 6,633 calo2000.met

12/05/2002 11:36 AM 2,276 calo2000.sbn

12/05/2002 11:36 AM 140 calo2000.sbx

12/05/2002 11:36 AM 660 calo2000.shp

12/05/2002 11:36 AM 260 calo2000.shx

12/05/2002 11:32 AM 7,386 calo2001.dbf

12/05/2002 03:15 PM 6,633 calo2001.met

12/05/2002 11:23 AM 8,388 calo2001.sbn

12/05/2002 11:23 AM 212 calo2001.sbx

12/05/2002 11:23 AM 4,804 calo2001.shp

12/05/2002 11:23 AM 1,444 calo2001.shx

11/25/2003 03:35 PM 14,352 calo2002.dbf

12/05/2002 03:11 PM 6,633 calo2002.met

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 9,756 calo2002.sbn

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 284 calo2002.sbx

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 9,340 calo2002.shp

12/05/2002 11:24 AM 2,740 calo2002.shx

09/08/2003 04:51 PM 19,098 calo2003.dbf

09/08/2003 03:54 PM 6,633 calo2003.met

09/08/2003 04:51 PM 12,532 calo2003.sbn

09/08/2003 04:51 PM 220 calo2003.sbx

09/08/2003 04:51 PM 14,828 calo2003.shp

09/08/2003 04:51 PM 4,308 calo2003.shx

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 3,510 caloplot.dbf

09/09/2003 12:59 PM 6,494 caloplot.met

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 8,204 caloplot.sbn

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 244 caloplot.sbx

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 3,124 caloplot.shp

09/09/2003 12:43 PM 964 caloplot.shx


Directory of \cd_data\mhwshape\asis_mhw

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 523 aimhw_00.dbf

12/19/2003 02:23 PM 6,305 aimhw_00.met

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 4,404 aimhw_00.sbn

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 164 aimhw_00.sbx

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 1,183,260 aimhw_00.shp

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 236 aimhw_00.shx

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 923 aimhw_96.dbf

12/19/2003 02:06 PM 6,305 aimhw_96.met

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 4,572 aimhw_96.sbn

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 204 aimhw_96.sbx

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 1,188,108 aimhw_96.shp

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 364 aimhw_96.shx

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 448 aimhw_97.dbf

12/19/2003 02:20 PM 6,305 aimhw_97.met

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 268 aimhw_97.sbn

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 132 aimhw_97.sbx

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 1,082,500 aimhw_97.shp

11/26/2002 12:42 PM 212 aimhw_97.shx

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 548 aimhw_98.dbf

12/19/2003 02:20 PM 6,305 aimhw_98.met

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 412 aimhw_98.sbn

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 148 aimhw_98.sbx

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 1,171,492 aimhw_98.shp

11/26/2002 12:41 PM 244 aimhw_98.shx

24 File(s) 4,664,382 bytes

0057226





114


Directory of \cd_data\mhwshape\caha_mhw

01/28/2003 01:56 PM 3,798 chmhw_00.dbf

12/19/2003 02:32 PM 6,318 chmhw_00.met

01/28/2003 01:56 PM 1,303,444 chmhw_00.shp

01/28/2003 01:56 PM 1,284 chmhw_00.shx

01/16/2002 09:55 AM 398 chmhw_96.dbf

12/19/2003 02:33 PM 6,318 chmhw_96.met

01/16/2002 09:55 AM 356 chmhw_96.sbn

01/16/2002 09:55 AM 140 chmhw_96.sbx

01/16/2002 09:55 AM 381,188 chmhw_96.shp

01/16/2002 09:55 AM 196 chmhw_96.shx

01/16/2002 11:12 AM 323 chmhw_97.dbf

12/19/2003 02:33 PM 6,318 chmhw_97.met

01/16/2002 11:12 AM 228 chmhw_97.sbn

01/16/2002 11:12 AM 132 chmhw_97.sbx

01/16/2002 11:12 AM 1,256,816 chmhw_97.shp

01/16/2002 11:12 AM 172 chmhw_97.shx

01/16/2002 11:20 AM 373 chmhw_98.dbf

12/19/2003 02:33 PM 6,318 chmhw_98.met

01/16/2002 11:20 AM 244 chmhw_98.sbn

01/16/2002 11:20 AM 132 chmhw_98.sbx

01/16/2002 11:20 AM 1,328,556 chmhw_98.shp

01/16/2002 11:20 AM 188 chmhw_98.shx

02/26/2002 09:45 AM 373 chmhw_99.dbf

12/19/2003 02:32 PM 6,318 chmhw_99.met

02/26/2002 09:45 AM 244 chmhw_99.sbn

02/26/2002 09:45 AM 132 chmhw_99.sbx

02/26/2002 09:45 AM 1,383,228 chmhw_99.shp

02/26/2002 09:45 AM 188 chmhw_99.shx

28 File(s) 5,693,723 bytes

Directory of \cd_data\mhwshape\calo_mhw

01/15/2002 03:45 PM 2,073 clmhw_00.dbf

12/19/2003 02:47 PM 6,316 clmhw_00.met

01/15/2002 03:45 PM 6,300 clmhw_00.sbn

01/15/2002 03:45 PM 204 clmhw_00.sbx

01/15/2002 03:45 PM 536,220 clmhw_00.shp

01/15/2002 03:45 PM 732 clmhw_00.shx

01/15/2002 03:27 PM 2,023 clmhw_97.dbf

12/19/2003 02:46 PM 6,316 clmhw_97.met

01/15/2002 03:27 PM 8,828 clmhw_97.sbn

01/15/2002 03:27 PM 180 clmhw_97.sbx

01/15/2002 03:27 PM 1,635,516 clmhw_97.shp

01/15/2002 03:27 PM 716 clmhw_97.shx

01/15/2002 03:30 PM 2,273 clmhw_98.dbf

12/19/2003 02:47 PM 6,316 clmhw_98.met

01/15/2002 03:30 PM 8,916 clmhw_98.sbn

01/15/2002 03:30 PM 188 clmhw_98.sbx

01/15/2002 03:30 PM 1,707,404 clmhw_98.shp

01/15/2002 03:30 PM 796 clmhw_98.shx

01/21/2003 11:14 AM 723 clmhw_99.dbf

12/19/2003 02:47 PM 6,316 clmhw_99.met

01/21/2003 11:14 AM 1,877,292 clmhw_99.shp

01/21/2003 11:14 AM 300 clmhw_99.shx

22 File(s) 5,815,948 bytes

Directory of \cd_data\pptfiles

12/15/2003 04:24 PM 2,463,744 lidar.ppt

1 File(s) 2,463,744 bytes

Directory of \cd_data\report

10/22/2001 06.15 PM 404,992 Interim_Report_10_22_2001.doc

10/02/2002 12:41 PM 1,143,808 Interim_Report_10_02_2002.doc

10/10/2003 12:30 PM 2,260,992 Interim_Report_10_7_2003.doc

09/21/2004 04:33 PM 10,843 Final_Presentation_8_13_2003_edited.ppt

47 File(s) 11,270,819 bytes

0057227

Documents

Restore Seabeach Amaranth: A Federally Threatened Species