Forest Health Based Scenario Building An accessible tool for climate change

management in Bruce Peninsula National Park

Kelly Moores Environment & Resource

Studies

Challenges for Parks

Challenges for Parks

Importance

• Ecological Integrity Mandate • Question System Plan representation

strategy • Maintain biodiversity • Facilitate northward migration • Monitor long term changes • Lead by example

Barriers

• Human Resources • Financial Resources • 2012 Budget Cuts

exacerbate problem • Political will…

Research Objective Use an established research program, regional

climate models and scenario building technique to create an accessible tool that can be used by park managers to anticipate future restoration needs caused by climate change and facilitated improved decision making

Conceptual Framework

Use Primary Climate Scenarios to Assess Potential

Changes to Temperature and

Precipitation

Examine Historical Monitoring

Knowledge for a Key System Driver

Build Management Scenarios based on

Stage 1 & 2 and examine their

implications for park management

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Stage 1

Sugar Maple 18%

Eastern Cedar 54%

Paper Birch 8%

Trembling Aspen

6%

White Spruce 8%

Other 6%

Adult tree abundance: Number of each tree species by percentage of trees

Stage 1 Site Annual Growth Rate Mortality

State of the Park 2010 2.21% 0%

Pendall Point 2.6% 0.53%

Horse Lake Trail -0.96% 1.28%

Cameron Lake Dunes 2.67% 0%

Emmett Lake 4.00% 0%

Average 2008-2012 2.10% 0.45%

Stage 1

Maple, 238

Balsem, 43

Aspen, 2

Cedar, 9 Ash, 45

Birch, 1

Regeneration data: Abundance of saplings by species

Stage 2

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Diff

eren

ce fr

om th

e R

efer

ence

in D

egre

e C

elci

us

A2 TP1

A2 TP2

A2 TP3

B1 TP1

B1 TP2

B1 TP3

Difference between predictions of monthly max temp (C) to the reference level for the BPNP region using

scenarios A2 and B1

Stage 2

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Mon

thly

pre

cipi

tatio

n in

mm

A2 TP1

A2 TP2

A2 TP3

Reference

B1 TP1

B1 TP2

B1 TP3

Variation predicted for monthly precipitation

Scenario Building

• Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold, a tool to analyze how driving forces might affect future outcomes

• Not a prediction, no probabilities assigned • Driving forces often include: demographics,

economics, technology, legislation, social values an attitudes

Scenario Building

B1

Assess impact on forest health

Passive Management

Active Management

Active Management

Passive Management

Scenario # 1

Scenario # 2

Scenario # 3

Scenario # 4

A2

Scenarios

Passive management

Active management

Less climate impact More climate impact

Scenario 2 Regional

Resilience

Scenario 3 Novelized

Forests

Scenario 4 Anticipatory Restoration

Scenario 1 Status Quo

Scenario Conclusions

• Most trees generalists • Soil and light

requirements important • Forest Health of BPNP

not in danger • Forest Health ≈ EI

Recommendations for BPNP

• More funding is always better • Emphasis on invasive species/pest

management • Soil conservation measures

Limitations • Only one major

indicator • New park – minimal

long term data • Studying a disturbed

system • Point of reference

for EI

Take Home Concepts • Minimal resources required • Shows multiple possible outcomes • Narrative format for easy communication • Anticipates action required • Efficient use of restoration funds • Focus on EI mandate

Acknowledgements • Thanks to my supervisor Stephen Murphy • Thank you to Scott Lemieux and the staff at

Bruce Peninsula National Park. • Sources of funding, thank you NSERC and

University of Waterloo.

Thank-you

References

Araújo, Miguel B, Diogo Alagador, Mar Cabeza, David Nogués-Bravo, and Wilfried Thuiller. 2011. “Climate change threatens European conservation areas.” Ecology letters 14(5):484–92. Retrieved March 12, 2012 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3116148&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract).

Baron, Jill S et al. 2009. “Options for national parks and reserves for adapting to climate change.” Environmental management 44(6):1033–42. Retrieved July 16, 2011 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2791479&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract).

Becker, Harold S. 1983. “Scenarios A Tool of Growing Importance to Policy Analysts in Government and Industry.” |technological forcasting and social change 120:95–120.

Burns, Catherine E, Kevin M Johnston, and Oswald J Schmitz. 2003. “Global climate change and mammalian species diversity in U.S. national parks.” PNAS 100(20):11474–11477.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. IPCC Special Report: Emission Scenarios. Lemieux, Christopher J., Thomas J. Beechey, and Paul a. Gray. 2011. “Prospects for Canada’s protected areas

in an era of rapid climate change.” Land Use Policy 28(4):928–941. Retrieved March 5, 2012 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264837711000299).

Lemieux, Christopher J., Thomas J. Beechey, Daniel J. Scott, and Paul a. Gray. 2011. “The state of climate change adaptation in Canada’s protected areas sector.” Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 55(3):301–317. Retrieved March 27, 2012 (http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2010.00336.x).

Parks Canada. 1997. National Park System Plan. Retrieved (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/pr-sp/index_e.asp).

Scott, Daniel, J A Y R Malcolm, and Christopher Lemieux. 2002. “Climate change and modelled biome representation in Canada ’ s national park system : implications for system planning and park mandates.” Ecology 25:475–484.

Urban, Mark C, Josh J Tewksbury, and Kimberly S Sheldon. 2012. “On a collision course: competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change.” Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society. Retrieved March 3, 2012 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217718).

Importance

Ecological Integrity: A condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including biotic and abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes

Scenario 1: Status Quo • B1 Passive Management

• Forest remains very

similar with small reduction in health of cedar and balsam fir over time

• Most change due to succession forest type dictated by soil depth

Scenario 2: Regional Resilience • B1 Active Management

• Forest of generalist trees experiences

minimal impact. Opportunity to build ecological integrity by targeting management and removing invasive species

Scenario 3: Novelized Forests • A2 Passive Management

• Declines in the health of

several boreal conifers but deciduous overtake minimal due to poor soil. Increase in shrub plants and invasive species, loss of habitat and EI

Scenario 4: Anticipatory Restoration • A2 Active Management

• Use planting to maintain coniferous/

deciduous forest structure • More effort needed to maintain hardwood

forest, opportunity to reintroduce historic hemlock

• Much effort needed to control invasive species and maintain good forest habitat

Importance

Location

Methods • EMAN forest health monitoring protocol Tree species, status, crown class, crown condition

Stage 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Maple Cedar Birch Balsem Aspen Spruce Unknown

Tre

e Q

uant

ity

Tree Species

# dead trees

% dead

Mortality data: Number of dead trees per species relative to total number of trees per species

Methods • EMAN forest health monitoring protocol Downed Woody Debris, Regeneration

Figure 3. Example of 45.14 meters transect for down woody debris.

20m x 20m Plot

20 m

20m

5.14m

Stage 2

Comparison to reference

Climate variable Reference A2 TP1 B1 TP1 A2 TP2 B1 TP2 A2 TP3 B1 TP3

Annual Mean Temperature °C 6.03 1.8 1.06 3.16 2.47 4.79 2.82

Annual Min Temperature °C 1.74 1.97 1.21 3.42 2.69 5.12 3.08

Annual Max Temperature °C 10.32 1.63 0.91 2.89 2.25 4.45 2.56

Annual Precipitation mm 924 10.5 -24.5 33 26 111.5 46

Precip in warmest quarter mm 211 -11 -12.5 -20 -9.5 3 -13.5

# of days of growing season 213 18.6 9 24 22 40 25.5