Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Re-Inventory of the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve
November 17, 2016
Danijela Puric-Mladenovic and Yikalo Hayelom Araya
NHIC, Science and Research Branch, OMNRF& Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto
The Niagara Escarpment
• 725 km corridor and habitat to many diverse and unique plant communities and associated fauna
• Protected under Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEDPA), 1973, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP)
• Designated a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve in 1990
The Niagara Escarpment Plan Area – the first land use and conservation plan in Ontario; it is part of the Greenbelt Plan Area.
Objectives• Re-sample stands
originally sampled in 1979-89– Detect changes in
vegetation• Pilot Vegetation
Sampling Protocol (VSP)
• Sampling Methods: 1) Point-Quarter
Sampling (same as in 1979-89)
2) Vegetation Sampling Protocol (VSP)
• Sampling conducted Summer 2011-2012
• Partnership effort
Historical 1980s sampling
• Sampling done by Steve Varga • Point-Quarter (P-Q) Sampling
Method– Plotless sampling approach (Cottam and
Curtis 1956)
• Of the original 111, 88 were accessible and sampled
Forest changes1) Canopy and sub-canopy
– Importance Values (IV) of trees and saplings
2) Ground vegetation– Herbaceous vegetation and seedlings
3) Floristic quality – Coefficient of conservatism and native plants)– Native vs. non-native plant distribution
4) Presence and abundance of weed plants5) Presence and abundance of invasive species 6) Forest structure 7) Across different sections of the escarpment
• Importance Value (IV) reflects species dominance at a site
• Forest canopy more homogeneous than in 1980s– IV increase for Sugar Maple and Eastern White Cedar
Canopy and sub-canopy
NE042
NE133
NE137
NE115
NE134
NE162
NE135
NE156
NE086
NE129
NE063
Change in tree composition
Ecoregion6E
7E
®Change in tree composition
Ecoregion6E
7E
®
Seedling compositional change of forest stands withinPrivate Land between 1979/81 and 2011/12
Seedling compositional change of forest stands withinPublic Land between 1979/81 and 2011/12
0 25 50 75 10012.5km
0.05 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.00
1.00 - 1.50
1.50 - 2.34
0.10 - 0.50
0.50 - 1.00
1.00 - 1.50
1.50 - 1.92
The magnitude of compositional change in forest stands on public and private lands
More change on private lands in the Gray section and on public lands in the Niagara Section
Percent change in average IV for the 10 most frequent tree species:
Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) importance values across the sampled stands on the Niagara Escarpment.
Birch importance values across the sampled stands on the NiagaraEscarpment.
American Beech importance values across the sampled stands on the Niagara Escarpment.
Increase in Ash importance values across the sampled stands on the Niagara Escarpment. Stands are listed from south to north
Trembling Aspen importance value
•Trees with greatest IV increase: – Mountain Maple (186% ↑)– Balsam Fir (154% ↑)
•Trees with greatest IV decrease:– Slippery Elm (85% ↓)– Black Maple (55% ↓)
NE106
NE152
NE074
NE110
NE115
NE139
NE127 NE042
NE155
NE146NE147
NE103
NE140
NE135
NE123
NE108
NE157
NE034
NE121
NE145
NE075NE120
Change in tree composition
Ecoregion6E
7E
®Change in tree composition
Ecoregion6E
7E
®
0 25 50 75 10012.5km
Herb's compositional change of forest stands withinPrivate Land between 1979/81 and 2011/12
Herb's compositional change of forest stands withinPublic Land between 1979/81 and 2011/12
0.20 - 1.00
1.00 - 2.00
2.00 - 3.00
3.00 - 5.28
0.20 - 1.00
1.00 - 2.00
2.00 - 3.00
3.00 - 3.80
The magnitude of herb’s compositional change on private and public lands.
Changes in Ground Vegetation
NE038
NE164
NE036
NE023
NE098
NE099NE064
NE065NE066
NE044NE045NE046
NE058
NE059NE022
NE101
NE060
NE063
NE001
NE007
NE103
NE008
NE009NE096
NE104
NE105
NE106
NE011
NE108NE034
NE109 NE037
NE086NE110
NE111
NE112 NE025
NE162NE035
NE158
NE116NE117
NE114NE095
NE118NE115
NE042
NE119NE120NE041
NE043
NE074
NE122NE121
NE126
NE127NE128NE123NE124
NE125
NE155
NE160
NE129
NE130
NE131
NE075NE132
NE133
NE134
NE135
NE136
NE137NE152NE153NE138
NE139
NE140
NE141
NE156
NE157NE161
NE142
NE143
NE144
NE145
NE146
NE147NE148
−2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
−4 0 4 8
PCA axis 1 (10.2%)
PC
A a
xis
2 (
9.6
%)
Hist.
NE038
NE164
NE036NE023
NE098
NE099
NE064
NE065
NE066
NE044NE045
NE046NE058NE059 NE022
NE101NE060
NE063
NE001
NE007
NE103
NE008
NE009
NE096
NE104
NE105
NE106NE011
NE108
NE034NE109
NE037
NE086NE110NE111NE112
NE025
NE162
NE035
NE158
NE116
NE117
NE114NE095
NE118NE115
NE042
NE119NE120
NE041NE043
NE074
NE122
NE121NE126
NE127
NE128NE123
NE124 NE125NE155
NE160
NE129
NE130
NE131
NE075NE132 NE133
NE134
NE135
NE136
NE137NE152NE153
NE138
NE139
NE140
NE141
NE156
NE157
NE161
NE142
NE143
NE144
NE145NE146
NE147
NE148
−2.5
0.0
2.5
5.0
−2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
PCA axis 1 (8.6%)
PC
A a
xis
2 (
7.9
%)
Pres.
Shrub layer more diverse and heterogeneous .
Stand ordination from a PCA of shrub’s importance values for historic and present day survey for 76 stands/plots.
Floristic Quality• Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) I• indicator of floristic quality based on conservatism or
nativeness ratings of individual species (Wilhelm 1977)• Lower or close to the historical value
– Statistically significant change in mean CC was observed for the Niagara Peninsula (p < 0.05).
Sections of Niagara Escarpment
Mean C
oeffic
ients
of C
onse
rvatis
m
Bruce P Dufferin Grey Halton Niagara P
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Pres.
Bruce P Dufferin Grey Halton Niagara P
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Sections of Niagara Escarpment
Hist.
Boxplots of average Coefficients of Conservatism for stands across five sections of Niagara Escarpment.
Changes in Floristic Quality
Non-native Plants• Number of non-native plants increased
Invasive Plants• An increase in number and abundance of
invasive plants – A substantial increase observed in the Niagara, Grey, Dufferin
and Haltom Sections.
• The number of sites with moderately aggressive invasive plants has doubled
• There is a 25-fold increase in number of sites with aggressive invasive plants.
Invasive Plants cont.
• Historically four invasive species: – Norway Maple, Garlic Mustard, Dame’s Rocket, and
Bittersweet Nightshade found across 14 stands.
• Presently 64% of the stands have invasive plants.– 51% of the stands had presence of aggressive invaders.
• Garlic Mustard, the most prevalent species in the recent survey– It was identified in a single stand (NE036) in the1980’s.
• Common Buckthorn and Garlic Mustard associated with – more with developed land– trails, road density, and human settlement
QUERRUB
<10 < 20 < 30 < 40 < 50 < 60 > 60 <10 < 20 < 30 < 40 < 50 < 60 > 60
010
2030
4050
010
2030
4050
Red Oak diameter distribution; inadequate regeneration
Forest Structure
QUERALB
05
10
05
10
<10 < 20 < 30 < 40 < 50 < 60 > 60 <10 < 20 < 30 < 40 < 50 < 60 > 60
Red Oak diameter distribution; inadequate regeneration White
Forest Structure
Why do we need to do monitoring and more research?
• Evaluate changing conditions• Quantify impacts of land
development and associated human activities on natural vegetation
• Provide empirical evidence to evaluate sustainability of current practices
• Helps balance land development with conservation
• Inform management and planning decisions
• Define and predict trends and changes
Monitoring to build resilience and inform decisions
• We have more homogeneous forest, more invasive plants
• There are some changes that are happening that we have no control over – Dutch Elm Disease, EAB
• But some can be condoled and directed Forest managementLand use planning and development
Acknowledgements• Field sampling in 2011-12 was possible through the following partnership: • The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC), The Niagara Escarpment
Biosphere Fund, The Niagara Escarpment Foundation, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto
• Steve Varga, Aurora District, MNRF• Judith Jones, Winter Spider Eco-Consulting• Miranda Jones, Winter Spider Eco-Consulting• Sally Robbins, Winter Spider Eco-Consulting• Terry Carleton, Faculty of Forestry, University
of Toronto• Melissa Apostoli, Master of Science, Forestry
candidate, University of Toronto• Lisa Grbinicek, Niagara Escarpment
Commission (NEC)• Richard Murzin, Niagara Escarpment
Biosphere Reserve• John Riley, Member, Niagara Escarpment
Commission Board of Directors• Teri Trent, Biosphere Coordinator, Niagara
Escarpment Biosphere Reserve• Dan Ventresca, GIS Specialist, NEC
• Steven Perks, MFC Student, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto
• Noah Borges, MFC Student, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto
• Emilie Metcalfe, Assistant Forest Technician, Natural Heritage Information Centre, MNRF
• David Tellier, Biodiversity Information Biologist, Natural Heritage Information Centre, MNRF
• Dave Nesbitt, Science and Research Branch , OMNRF
• David Bradley, OMNRF• Julia Buck, OMNRF• Kim Taylor, OMNRF• Silvia Strobl, OMNRF• Jim McKenzie, OMNRF
