Date post: | 26-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sustainable-prosperity |
View: | 115 times |
Download: | 3 times |
SPECIES, MULTI-SPECIES & ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY IN ACTION in Southern Ontario Jarmo Jalava Director of Ecosytem Recovery Carolinian Canada Coalition
Personal background / bias:
- Peregrine Falcon Reintroduction Program (1978-1979)
- Biological/ecological inventories of >200 parks and natural areas
- Ecological Survey of the Niagara Escarpment (1991-1996)
- Ecological Survey of the Eastern Georgian Bay Coast (2001-2005)
- International Alvar Conservation Initiative (1996-2000)
- Provincial Natural Areas Ecologist – Ontario NHIC (1996-2001)
- Chippewas of Nawash SAR Inventory & Capacity-building (2007-
Ecosystem / Multi-species Recovery Teams
- Pitcher’s Thistle - Lake Huron Dune Grasslands RT (2004-
- Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin Island Alvar Ecosystems RT (2005-
- Carolinian Woodland Plants RT (2007-
- Bobolink – Eastern Meadowlark Recovery Working Group (2010-
Personal background / bias:
Author / co-author
of draft/posted federal/provincial recovery strategies:
Single Species (9): Pitcher’s Thistle, Drooping Trillium, Wild Hyacinth, Kentucky Coffee-tree, Heart-leaved Plantain, Dwarf Lake Iris, Nodding Pogonia, Large Whorled Pogonia, Gattinger’s Agalinis
Multi-Species / Ecosystem (4): draft Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin Island Alvars (Dwarf Lake Iris, Lakeside Daisy, Hill’s Thistle, Gattinger’s Agalinis); draft Pitcher’s Thistle – Lake Huron Dune Grasslands; Carolinian Woodlands (Phase I & II); Bobolink – Eastern Meadowlark
Personal background / bias:
Southern Ontario
Most people think I’m a scientist. I don’t.
This presentation
Summarizes some of the advantages and disadvantages of single-species and multi-species/ecosystem approaches to recovery.
Highlights multi-species & ecosystem recovery initiatives that build upon the species-specific SARA recovery approach.
Recovery Strategies in Canada
• Single species approaches prevail
• RS Templates designed for single species
• Each species is theoretically represented by a Recovery Team (many teams now inactive)
• In some cases no Recovery Team formed due to low complexity (few sites, on protected lands etc.)
• Most Recovery Strategies have not developed Action Plans
Advantages of single-species RS’s
• Afford in-depth understanding of species-specific biological requirements and threats.
• Recovery Teams can be of a manageable size, and include key experts.
• Intensive population assessment and monitoring can be undertaken for all known extant sites.
• Recovery efforts can be more easily identified and implemented, and can focus on key populations for species survival.
Problems with single-species RS’s
• Typically a lengthy process to develop a Recovery Strategy from draft to final posting (averaging >3 years)
Problems with single-species RS’s • Recovery Teams are typically small, drawn
from limited pool of experts, many of whom serve on other teams (burn-out factor)
• Reduced opportunity to develop the partnerships required for implementation
• Tendency to go dormant after an initial period of activity
Problems with single-species RS’s
• Time- and labour-intensive to identify critical habitat, especially for species with many small, widely-dispersed populations.
• Limited resources for implementation – divided amongst 100’s of species nationwide.
Problems with single-species RS’s
Strategies may not adequately address longer term impacts of recovery activities on other species, habitats and ecosystems.
When are single-species approaches most effective?
On intact, functioning landscapes with relatively low concentrations of SAR (e.g., Woodland Caribou).
For critically imperiled species with extremely low populations and few occurrences (e.g., Piping Plover, Heart-leaved Plantain).
Multi-species & Ecosystem RS’s
Similarities:
– Both deal with multiple species (an ecosystem strategy often nests individual species strategies within the larger strategy)
– Both often involve the protection of a rare or unique vegetation community type or ecosystem
– Both often focus on ecological processes, species interactions and landscape-level considerations (e.g., habitat connectivity)
Multi-species Recovery Strategies
• In Ontario alone, at least 13 multi-species and ecosystem recovery strategies drafted.
• Few have received federal/provincial approval (Sydenham River, Garry Oak), but many are being implemented anyway: (e.g., Turtles, Tallgrass, Carolinian Woodlands, Ausable River Aquatic, Thames River Aquatic, Pitcher’s Thistle – Lake Huron Dune Grasslands, Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin Island Alvars, Lake Erie Sand Spit Savannahs)
Problems with Multi-species RS’s
Clark & Harvey (2002) found that multi-species approaches in U.S. generally:
- Displayed poorer understanding of species biology
- Were less likely to include adaptive management strategies
- Were revised less frequently
They recommend: “explicit use of threat-similarity analysis to identify appropriate groups of species for concurrent management”
Multi-species & Ecosystem RS’s
In highly-impacted, fragmented landscapes with high concentrations of SAR, multi-species and ecosystem-based approaches may be more appropriate -- at least at the implementation stage.
Case study: Implementation
Carolinian Life Zone 0.25% of Canada’s land mass >40% of Canada’s plant taxa
= our most biologically diverse ecoregion
Carolinian Life Zone 0.25% of land mass (>95% private, <2% protected)
25% of Canada’s human population
Carolinian Life Zone
>94% upland forest lost
>70% of wetlands lost
>98% of prairies and savannahs lost
>150 designated Species At Risk
(25% of national total, 100X concentration)
>500 additional potential Species At Risk
+ Many globally significant ecosystems and natural features
• COORDINATION
• COLLABORATION
• INTEGRATION
of recovery efforts in Carolinian Canada
Carolinian Canada Coalition:
Carolinian Woodland Plants Recovery Team
formed in 2004 to develop single-species recovery strategies for 9 priority taxa:
Drooping Trillium, Heart-leaved Plantain, Round-leaved Greenbrier, Wild Hyacinth, Kentucky Coffee-tree, Large Whorled Pogonia, Nodding Pogonia, False Rue Anemone and Crooked-stem Aster.
• BUT >50 designated SAR require Canada’s Carolinian woodland habitats;
• Another >100 SAR occur in associated Carolinian ecosystems, often at the same sites;
• 100’s more “potential” SAR
Carolinian Woodlands Recovery Strategy
Ecosystem-based strategy
based partly on
single-species needs
Site-based action planning, implementation
Photo credit: Daniela Puric-Mladenovic
Species At Risk “HOTSPOTS”
Where to start?
Developing
Strategies &
Measures
Implementing
Strategies &
Measures
Using Results to
Adapt & Improve
Defining
Your Project
Defining
Your Project
· Project people
· Project scope & focal
targets
An approach to
conservation
applied and refined
throughout the
world for >30 years
How to do it?
CAP Around the World
• The Nature Conservancy (U.S.) and international partners (e.g., WWF)
• Federal government agencies in Bolivia, Madagascar, Thailand, China, Peru, Guatemala, etc.
• Parks planning in Egypt (Dan Paleczny)
• NGO’s in Australia, Mexico, Kenya
• Great Bear Rainforest, B.C.; Lake Huron (ON/MI)
• Nature Conservancy of Canada
• >500 CAPs being implemented worldwide
Doria Gordon training Madagascar National Parks staff
CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Introduction
CAP Partners
Steering committee • Typically higher-level managers of local agencies,
organizations and groups
• Defines the scope of the CAP, participants, roles, overall goals and objectives, stakeholder liaison, leveraging support, guiding implementation and monitoring.
Science / Ecology Team • Typically consists of local biologists, naturalists, SAR
recovery team members & conservation practitioners
• Develops list of conservation targets, assessing their viability, threats, key ecological attributes to monitor, conservation objectives and strategies.
CCC – Conservation Action Planning
CAP Partners (cont’d)
Advisors • Available to advise on specific questions, information
requests, issues
Implementation Partners • Research, inventory & monitoring; stewardship; ecological
restoration; site securement and protection; education and outreach; sustainable economic development (ecotourism, agriculture, industry).
CCC – Conservation Action Planning
Conservation Targets
Nested Targets
1. Rivers, streams,
(including Old Ausable
Channel), associated
wetlands and riparian
meadows
Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox,
Kidneyshell, Pugnose Shiner, Lake
Chubsucker, River Redhorse, Blanding’s
Turtle, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Spiny
Softshell, Spotted Turtle, Stinkpot,
Northern Map Turtle
2. Moist forests and
swamps
Heart-leaved Plantain, Prothonotary
Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Eastern
Flowering Dogwood, Red-shouldered
Hawk
3. Fresh upland
deciduous / mixed
forests
Hooded Warbler, American Ginseng,
Green Dragon, Broad Beech Fern,
Cucumber Tree, Cerulean Warbler,
Acadian Flycatcher, Woodland Vole,
Red-headed Woodpecker, Bald Eagle (?)
Shared ecological needs or threats
“Special needs” species
treated separately
Butternut, Eastern Flowering Dogwood: disease
SAR reptiles: road mortality
Nodding Pogonia: very rare, specific monitoring needs
Chimney Swift, Bobolink: anthropogenic habitats
ELEMENT
Associated Conservation
Target(s) (see Table 1.5 for
key to codes)
Hab
itat Frag
mentatio
n
Hab
itat Lo
ss
Deg
radatio
n o
f Hab
itat
Inco
mp
atib
le Fo
rest
Man
agem
en
t
Chan
ges to
natu
ral su
ccession
Disease
Chan
ges to
Hyd
rolo
gy
Distu
rban
ce (Recreatio
n,
Co
nstru
ction o
r Main
tenance
)
Discrim
inate K
illing, C
ollectio
n,
Harv
esting
Po
llutio
n
Ro
ad M
ortality
Excessiv
e Pred
ation, P
arasitism
or H
erbiv
ory
Co
mp
etition w
ith In
trod
uced
Sp
ecies
Hyb
ridiza
tion w
ith In
trod
uce
d
Sp
ecies
Comments
Crooked-stem
Aster
1. RS; 2. VF (edge); 3. TF
(forest edge and roadsides)
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
Limited by semi-obligate out-breeding system (requires genetically
different individuals to produce seed); Forestry: clear-cutting, heavy
selective timber harvesting, damage; erosion due to tile drainage or
other agricultural activities; garlic mustard; trampling by off-road
vehicles
Note: 19 of 22 known populations in 1999 Status Report found in Elgin
County
Dense Blazing-star 1. PS; 2. IW O
E
O
E
O
E O
O
E
O
E?
O
E
O
E?
Limited by climate and lack of disturbance (e.g. fire); over-grazing;
hybridization and genetic erosion (cultivated varieties available at
garden centres); herbicide application; mowing
Drooping Trillium 1. VF; 2. MF O
E
O
E
O
E O
O
E?
O?
E?
O?
E?
O
E
Limited by low dispersal ability, low seed production, climate;
excessive opening of canopy; dumping; decreased soil moisture;
exotic earthworms; herbivory/browsing/grazing?; garlic mustard;
honeysuckles
Note: selective logging at one Elgin site
Eastern Flowering
Dogwood
1. UF; fencerows and
roadsides
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
O
E
Main threat is dogwood anthracnose fungus; fire suppression and
forest succession (closed canopy results in reduced EFD vigour and
encourages fungal growth); reduced probability of seed dispersal;
restricted gene flow (possibly reducing ability to develop natural
resistance to anthracnose); insects and pests
Species, ecosystem, socioeconomic
knowledge drawn from RS’s & local experts
CAP objectives and actions must be:
Strategic
Measurable
Action-oriented / Achievable
Relevant / Realistic
Time-limited
CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Methodology
Instead of “increase forest cover”
By 2020, the area dominated by native vegetation will be increased by 50 ha, comprising an increase of
25% of total natural area
What specific measurable outcomes do we want to achieve? Image credit: Daniela Puric-Mladenovic
CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Methodology
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Key Ecological Attributes and other components
for monitoring:
- Specific SAR populations
- Extent of forest interior (forest species)
- Presence of key indicator species (prairies)
- Benthic organism composition (aquatic)
- Water temperature (aquatic)
- Buffer widths (riparian)
- Landowner participation in stewardship programs
- Etc.
CAP Partners
More than 80 organisations have contributed to the development and implementation of Carolinian Canada CAPs since 2008
$$$ millions in in-kind implementation of CAPs in the first 4 years of the program
And GROWING!
CCC – Conservation Action Planning
CURRENT STATUS (October 2012)
CCC Conservation Action Plan Network
Completed by CCC & partners;
in implementation phase
Draft completed by CCC &
partners; implementation begun
In progress (CCC & partners)
Ausable -
Kettle Point -
Pinery
Essex Forests &
Wetlands / Pt. Pelee
Western
Lake Erie
Islands
Norfolk
Sand
Plain
Upper
Thames
Skunks
Misery
Hamilton -
Burlington Short
Hills
Niagara
River
Corridor
Grand
River
Forests
Walpole
Island
Sydenham
River
Rondeau
Rouge
Valley
Completed
by NCC
Areas of
Interest /
Action
Elgin
Greenway
Six
Nations
Actions, Results, Monitoring
Strategic land acquisitions
Ecological restoration projects
Invasive species control
Seasonal road closures (Jefferson Salamander)
SAR surveys and monitoring
Municipal Official Plan input
SAR Teacher’s kit
Best Management Practices fact sheets, web site
Landowner SAR stewardship workshops, etc., etc., etc.
+
Annual Recovery Forum and monitoring report
CCC – Conservation Action Planning
• CAPs engage municipalities and contribute to municipal natural heritage systems planning and official plans.
• CAPs engage First Nations, conservation authorities, stewardship councils, agricultural organisations, naturalist clubs, land trusts, the business community…
Benefits of CCC’s approach
• Relationships between conservation partners are strong and reciprocal
• We work to facilitate community buy-in and participation
• A broad spectrum of sectors and stakeholders participate in planning and implementation.
• CAPs serve to strengthen and coordinate the Species At Risk and ecosystem recovery efforts of partner agencies, organizations and local groups
• Each CAP is tailored to the area in which it is developed by the CAP team
• Building resilience, climate change adaptation
Benefits of CCC’s approach
Other Examples
Pitcher’s Thistle – Lake Huron Dune Grasslands
- research
- stewardship
“Beach and Dune Guidance Manual for Providence Bay”
Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin Island Alvar Ecosystems
- research
- stewardship
- protection
- community engagement
Summary
1. Sound, scientific understanding of species-specific needs and threats is essential to recovery.
2. In intact, functioning landscapes with low concentrations of SAR, single species recovery approaches are likely to be most appropriate and effective.
Summary
3. In highly-impacted, fragmented landscapes with high concentrations of SAR, multi-species and ecosystem-based approaches are more likely to be appropriate, at least at the implementation stage.
4. Ecosystem-based implementation is dependent (in part) on species-specific knowledge.
5. SARA is an essential tool.
We cannot have informed or effective ecosystem/multi-species recovery without consideration of single-species recovery needs.
Nor can we have informed, effective single-species recovery without consideration of multi-species and ecosystem needs.
Finally, for the fiscally-minded:
In degraded landscapes, single-species recovery is like paying only the interest ($$ millions) on a growing debt ($$$ billions).
Recovering ecosystem functionality and integrity is like paying off the principal.
We cannot stop paying the interest until we have paid off the principal.
Miigwetch, Merci, Thank You! Partners, OMNR SAR Stewardship Fund, EC’s HSP