T t i l V l t M it i Terrestrial Volunteer Monitoring Program

Engaging citizens to collect scientifically valid data on g g g yregional ecosystem status & trends

Monitoring Questions1. What is the overall health/condition/integrity of the terrestrial g y

ecosystem in the Toronto regional jurisdiction, including its forest, wetland and meadow components and the transition zones between them?

2. How is the health/condition/integrity of the terrestrial ecosystem changing over time? Are there identifiable trends?

3. Are there differences in health/condition/integrity of the terrestrial ecosystem of the urban, urbanizing and rural zones of the region, and how are these changing over time?how are these changing over time?

4. What characteristics of the landscape in which sites are located are helpful in explaining or predicting differences, if any, between zones or p p g p g yover time?

TVM Program

implemented 2002implemented 2002fifty-six 10 ha fixed sitesvolunteers survey assigned site 10 times each yeary g yrecord presence of set of 50 native indicator species (anurans, birds, mammals, flora, lichens)estimate severity of invasion by 8 invasive plants (new 2009)online data entry

Quality AssuranceS t lSurvey protocol

unique method for recording observationsobservations

Site aids – aerial photo, ELCID aidsID aidsTraining protocolData validation protocolData validation protocolData verification protocol

2002 – 2007 Results2002 2007 Results

Robert Lawton, 2006

Data collection & participation

56 active sites 2,800 site visits made (1500 person days)2,800 site visits made (1500 person days)Over 22,000 species observation records33 private landowners33 private landowners400 volunteers

Indicator Species

Native Indicators 50

Regional Species of Conservation Concern - 6 flora & 17 fauna

23Concern - 6 flora & 17 fauna

Flora 19

Fauna 25Amphibians (anurans)BirdsMammals

8143

Photo: L. StemmlerLichens 6

Invasive Exotic Plant Indicators 8

Indicator Species ScoringIndicator Species ScoringCommon Name Scientific Name LO PTn PTt HD AS SPI SD AP Total L-Rank

0-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 0-2 ScoreAmerican toad Bufo americanus 0 2 2 1 1 2 4 0 12 L4American toad Bufo americanus 0 2 2 1 1 2 4 0 12 L4American woodcock Scolopax minor 0 2 3 2 3 2 4 0 16 L3bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 0 3 2 2 3 1 4 0 15 L3bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 4 4 3 3 2 3 5 1 25 L2eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus 0 2 2 1 2 2 3 0 12 L4eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna 0 3 2 2 3 2 3 0 15 L4eastern screech-owl Megascops asio 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 0 14 L4eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens 0 4 2 1 2 2 2 0 13 L4green heron Butorides virescens 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 15 L3

f R l it 0 2 2 1 1 2 4 0 12 L4green frog Rana clamitans 0 2 2 1 1 2 4 0 12 L4

HD - Habitat dependence

AS - Area sensitivity

SPI - Sensitivity to patch isolation

SD - Sensitivity to developmentSD Sensitivity to development

Indices calculated by site

Indicator Species Richness Index (SR)

Habitat Dependence Index (HD)

Area Sensitivity Index (AS) fauna onlyArea Sensitivity Index (AS) - fauna only

Sensitivity to Patch Isolation Index (SPI) - fauna only

Sensitivity to Development Index (SD)

Site Characteristic DataAll sites:• land-use zone: urban, urbanizing, rural• patch area: size of natural cover area on which site is

locatedlocated• quality score for patch (from landscape analysis)

Sites with wetland:• forest area within 2 km• wetland area within 2 km• wetland area within 2 km• distance to paved road• road density: length within 2 kmy g

RESULTS: Native indicator species richness habitat RESULTS: Native indicator species richness, habitat dependence, area sensitivity, sensitivity to patch isolation & to development

IndexRegion Land-use zone Urban

ControlSiteRange Mean Urban Urbanizing Rural SiteRange Mean Urban Urbanizing Rural

SR 14 - 68% 39% 31% 45% 45% 13%

HD 12 64% 35% 28% 38% 40% 8%HD 12 - 64% 35% 28% 38% 40% 8%

AS* 0 - 75% 25% 14% 33% 35% 0%

SPI* 0 - 81% 28% 17% 35% 38% 0%

SD 12 - 64% 34% 27% 39% 41% 10%

* Where AS & SPI scores are 0%, none of the 25 fauna indicators were found on the site

Figure 7: TVM Site Indicator Species Richness (SR) Scores (% of sites in range)

6%6%

15%

R i38%

SR S 65%

Region

SR Score > 65%

SR Score 50-64%

SR Score 35-49%

35%SR Score 20-34%

SR Score < 20%

79% of sites recorded fewer than half of the indicator species

Figure 9: Number of Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC) found on TVM Sites (% of sites in range)

4%4%

19%

44%Region

≥ 14 SOCC

10 - 13 SOCC

6 9 SOCC

33%

6 - 9 SOCC

≤ 5 SOCC

77% of sites had 9 or fewer of the 28 SOCC; 44% had 5 or fewer

Urban vs. Rural Zones

Figure 10: Number of Species of Conservation Concern on Urban Sites (% of sites in range)

0% 5%

Figure 11: Number of Species of Conservation Concern on Rural Sites (% of sites in range)

5%20%

19%

≥ 14 SOCC

10 - 13 SOCC

6 - 9 SOCC

40% ≥ 14 SOCC

10 - 13 SOCC

6 - 9 SOCC

76%

6 - 9 SOCC

≤ 5 SOCC 35% ≤ 5 SOCC

Just 5% of urban sites had over 10 SOCC; 45% of rural sites had over 10 SOCC;Just 5% of urban sites had over 10 SOCC; none had more than 14

45% of rural sites had over 10 SOCC; 5% had more than 14

Additional Analysis

relationship - monitoring results and landscape characteristics

good agreement between data setsbetween data sets

I i S i M it i 2009Invasive Species Monitoring 2009• dog-strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum & C. nigrum)

( )• garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)• periwinkle (Vinca minor)• common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)• glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula)• Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera)• common reed (Phragmites australis australis)common reed (Phragmites australis australis)• European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae)

Photo: Christian Fischer, Wikipedia.org

2009 Invasive Indicator Results

• 7 of 8 selected invasives recorded within TVM sites

• European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) found just • European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) found just outside boundary of a site in Duffin's Marsh/lower Duffin's wetland complex

• 50% of sites severely invaded

C b kthCommon buckthorn

Severity of Invasion

Conclusions

degraded condition - terrestrial ecosystemsignificant difference - urban & rural zones% scores easy to understandsupport TNH System Strategy, landscape pp y gy panalysis scoring and L ranking methodbasis for future temporal analysisopportunity to explore relationship – invasive vs. native

F i f tiFor more information:Monitoring Results Report 2008Progress report 2006g pVolunteer training presentations www.trcavolunteerdata.cacontact : Theresa McKenzie

tmckenzie@trca.on.ca, 416-661-6600 x 5658

Data recording what constitutes a positive observation?

Primary: one foot long & skinny with furry tail

S d d k b bl k i l ( ll

Mink (Mustela vison)(L4)

Data recording - what constitutes a positive observation?

Secondary: dark brown or black in colour (small white spot under chin often visible)

Tertiary: tracks are in 2-2 bounding pattern; near water; to 4” wide per pair; pairs between 11” and 38”

(L4)

water; to 4 wide per pair; pairs between 11 and 38 apart; trail may contain slides up to 4” wide (submit photo or measurements)

Photo: Tom LuskPhoto: Tom Lusk

Month Fauna FloraMonth Fauna Flora

January or February(one visit)

PorcupineMink

ff d

Eastern hemlockWhite pine

hi dRuffed grouse Eastern white cedarMarch

(one visit)Eastern screech owl

April(two visits)

American woodcockSpring peeperWood frogWestern chorus frogWestern chorus frogNorthern leopard frogAmerican toad

May Pileated woodpecker Marsh marigoldy(one visit)

pWood duck

gWhite trilliumJack-in-the-pulpitNarrow-leaved spring beautyFoam flowerFoam flowerStar flower

Month Fauna FloraMonth Fauna FloraJune

(two visits)Eastern wood-peweeOvenbirdScarlet tanagergSwamp sparrowVirginia railGreen heronB b li kBobolinkSavannah sparrowEastern meadowlarkGreen frogGrey treefrogBullfrog

Michigan lilyRiverbank wild rye

July & August(one visit each month)

Riverbank wild ryeTurtleheadSwamp milkweedSpotted Joe-pye weedBarber-pole BulrushWhite oak

Month Fauna Flora

October(one or two visits)*

Eastern chipmunkTrail Mapping*

Christmas fernWinterberryZigzag goldenrodMealy rosette lichenCandleflame lichenHooded sunburst lichenRough speckled shield lichenRough speckled shield lichenCommon greenshield lichenHammered shield lichen

Analysis

native indicator species richness (%)amphibians, birds, flora, lichensforest, wetland, meadow habitat guildsRegional Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC)g p ( )

Photo: Tom Lusk