Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rosamond-little |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Ecological Integrity as a Model for Understanding and
Managing Parks and Protected Areas
Stephen Woodley, PhDChief ScientistParks Canada
Purposes of Protected Areas
ObjectivesNatural conditionsResource ValuesSingle speciesWildernessNature
Ecological Integrity
Ecosystem Integrity as a Philosophy
Utilitarian
Nature serves us
Most resourcemanagement
Harvest
water qualityducks/hectaretourists/park
Ecological
We are part ofnature
Land ethicEcosystem integrity
Sustainability
biodiversityindicator suitesstress analysis
Romantic
Humans absent
from nature
PristineNatural
Wilderness
unroaded>20 hectaresno facilities
Assumptions
Expectations
Measures
Changes in Ecosystem Understanding
World View 2
Non-equilibrium, openDynamicSelf-organizeComplexEmergent Properties
World View 1
OrderlyBalance of natureStabilityEvolve slowly
Ecosystem Structure and Energy Flowenergy gradient
high quality energy low quality energy
Organized - sun Unorganized - heat
ComplexStructure orEcosystem
Type of ecosystem is affected by:- latitude, because suns energy is stronger- water and nutrient availability- colonization history
Species Richness by Latitude for Mammalian Quadrupeds
Ave
rage
# s
peci
es
Latitude o
100
80
60
40
20
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Ecological integrity
A state of ecosystem development that is characteristic for its geographic location
Full range of native species and supporting processes Likely to persist - viable
for protected areas, we have often called this natural, or untouched.
Measuring Ecological Integrity- there are several ways
1. Whole systems measurement - thermodynamics2. Flows and rates - 3. Suite of indicators
structure and functionmulti-scalemost sensitive
400
300
200
100
0
-10 0 10 20 30
Worldwide Ecosystem Distribution by Average Annual
Temperature and Rainfall
Ave
rage
an
nu
al p
reci
pita
tion
(cm
)
Average annual temperature (oC)
Tropicalrainforest
Tropicalrainforest
Temperaterainforest
Tropicalrainforest
Taiga
Tundra DesertShrubland
(Grassland)
Woodland
Whole system measures - thermodynamic efficiency
Ecosystem structure - keeping the parts is the first priority is a precautionary approach to ecosystem management – focus on species
Landscape level structure - must be maintained to ensurespecies and community survival
Ecosystem Function - keeping the processes
Biodiversity exists because of, not in spite of, ecosystem disturbances. Maintaining process is critical.
Organisms use patches on the landscape. The patches need to remain connected.
Hypothesis - Cascade Corridor Restoration
Before 1997
1997-Present
Wolf Pack Tracking Sequences
Active Management - Can we/should we? Prescribed fire
Population control
Exotics
The Parks Canada Ecological Integrity Monitoring Program
y = -0.319x + 27.813
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Properties of Scale
population
community
landscape
Time
S p a c e
organism
cell
structure and function
Ecosystem
Possible Cause and Effect
Relationships
Case 1: Known Stress Known Effect
Case 2: Known Stress Unknown Effect
Case 3: Unknown Stress Known Effect
Case 4: Unknown Stress Unknown Effect
Monitoring Approach
Threat- Specific Monitoring – Key Management Issues
Core Indicators
- Prediction of response- Research component
- Hierarchical approach - Structure and function- Most likely to react to a range of stressors
A two pronged approach to assessing ecological integrity
Ove
rall
Mon
itori
ng P
rogr
am
Ecological Integrity Monitoring FrameworkA Balance Sheet for Assessing Ecological Integrity
Biodiversity Ecosystem Functions Stressors
Species richness- change in species richness- numbers and extent of exotics
Population Dynamics- mortality/natility rates of indicator species- immigration/emigration of indicator species*- population viability of indicator species
Trophic structure- size class distribution of all taxa- predation levels
Succession/retrogression- disturbance frequencies and size- vegetation age class distributions
Productivity
Decomposition
Nutrient retention- Ca, Nitrogen
Human land-use patterns- land use maps, roads densities, population densities.
Habitat fragmentation- patch size, inter-patch distance, forest interior
Pollutants- sewage, petrochemicals etc.- long-range transport of toxics
Climate- weather data- frequency of extreme events
Other- park specific issues
Measure or IndicatorChanges in Species Richness
Taxonomic Historical Present % Native Present Present %Group Native Native Species Non-native Non-native
Species Species Loss Species Species
Mammals 40 34 15.0 3 8.1Vascular Plants 414 412 0.5 119 22.3Herpetofauna 18 18 0.0 0 0.0Breeding Birds 95 93 2.1 2 2.1
Totals 567 557 1.8 124 18.2
Interpreting the Indicators
Changes in native species:
Original number of native mammals vs. present number of native mammals
Reference value (34) 1.00
Measured value (26) 0.76
Changes in non-native species:
Ratio of present total numbers of vascular plants, including exotics to native plants.
Reference value (412) 1.00Measured value (533) 1.29
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1g 10g
100g 1k
g10
kg
100k
g
ExtirpatedExisting
Body Size Class
Prop
orti
on o
f al
l Ver
tebr
ates
The proportion of all existing and extirpated invertebrates found in National Parks, grouped by body size class
Assessing Human ImpactsStatistical correlations R2 Values
Exotic Vertebratesand Vascular Plants
ExtirpatedVertebrates
In parkRoad density 0.732 0.818
Visitors/sq km 0.477 0.830
Percentage human-dominated landscape
0.461 0.348
In regionRoad density 0.583 0.712
Human populationper sq km
0.630 0.868
Percentage human-dominated landscape
0.580 0.544
Source: 1997 Parks Canada State of Park Reporthttp://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/indexe.htm
The Principle, Criteria, Indicator, and Target Framework
Principle Criteria Indicator Target maintain grizzly bears at
viable levels in Park and greater ecosystem
# of breeding females
to maintain a minimum of 50 breeding females, with annual mortality of less than 2%
maintain salamanders at viable levels in Park
# of individuals to maintain less than a 50% change in population counts over 20 years
maintain mountain goats at viable levels
ratio of lamb:non-lamb nursery sheep
to maintain ratio within limits of the ‘worst case’ scenario
maintain ecosystem productivity at historical levels
soil/foliar macronutrient concentrations (N,P,K)
to measure changes in soil/foliar macronutrient concentrations from historical means, within a confidence interval of =0.20 and =0.10
maintain most ‘functional’ seral stage coverage for park objectives
areal coverage of all seral stages
to maintain areal coverage of late seral stages at 70-80% of park landscape
maintain macroscale ecosystem productivity
AVHRR/NDVI to measure changes in NDVI from historical means within a confidence interval of =0.20 and =0.10
maintain ecological integrity of all Park ecosystems
MONITORING PROTOCOLS
Suite of Ecological Indicators - Example
State of the Greater Fundy Ecosystemhttp://www.unb.ca/web/forestry/centers/cwru/soe/title.htm
Succession/Retrogression - younger forests, little old growth
Loss of native species - 14 species of vertebrates, one invertebrate and 20 plants
Invasion of exotic species - 17.5% of the total known species
Loss in average body size - loss of large bodied mammals (-13%)
Reproduction in key indicator species - generally OK
Ability to retain nutrients - significant loss of N and Ca
Landscape fragmentation - extreme
Viability of populations - little chance for Pine marten or flying squirrel
Reporting on a Suite of Indicators
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
Parameter 3
Parameter 4
chopsticks
salamanders
foliar nutrient concentrations
subcanopy < 1m
subcanopy > 1m
forest canopy
songbirds
nutrient availability and uptake
soil Ca/N
forest floor mineralization
nutrient leaching
bark/leaf invertebrates
unmonitored factors
leaf litter nutrient concentration
climate change
stressor
monitored indicator
soil process
stream water monitoring
forest floor invertebrates
climate change
acid rain
herbivory
ecological effect
stressor effect
Conceptual model showing relationships between monitored ecological indicators and two ecosystem
stressors – acid rain and climate change biotic process
changes in vegetation structure/composition
prey base changes
prey base changes
prey base changes
process indicator
Sound Science
Park SOP Report Card
Realm Terrestrial Ecosystems Freshwater Ecosystems System Forests Wetlands Streams Lakes
Biodiversity
Ecosystem Function
Human Stressors – In Park
Human Stressors – Outside Park
?
Other stressors
?
Code Management Concern Symbol Condition Change
immediate management action is required
condition is worsening
there is an important management concern
no change in condition
there is a minor management concern
condition is improving
no management concern ? condition trend unknown
Effective Communication
Communicating EI Science
Using the Results of EI Assessment
high
low
North Yukon
Fundy
Pt. Pelee
Increasing
need for active
management
high low
Ecological
integrity
Intensity of Stresses
Management Plan
State of Parks
What scale is correct for management?
Management by zoneWhat about before the park was a parkPre-Colombian America
Forest Changes
Stand Dynamics
Gap Dynamics
Tree replacement
Tree Growth
Whole tree physiology
Leaf Physiology
Spatial Scale1000 KM
Tim
e sc
ale
Ecosystems are inherently multi-scaled.
Larger parks
Hemisphericplanning.
Inter-regionalplanning
Regional planningI.e. greater ecosystems
Parks
Spatial Scale10000 KM
Tim
e sc
ale
Institutional Responses to Ecological Issues must also be multi-scaled.
Ecological IntegrityNew way of thinking about parks that is more rooted in conservation science
Avoids the traps of “wilderness”, “role of people”, and “natural”
Allows measurement and accountability
Key Points:
- Understand how the ecosystem worksUnderstand how the ecosystem works
- Maintain good vital signsMaintain good vital signs
- Manage at the all scalesManage at the all scales
- Monitor condition and reactMonitor condition and react