Rangelands of Subarctic and Arctic North America and Europe:

ecosystems, wildlife and management

Dave Downing, X Int’l Range Conf. 2016

Outline • Arctic/subarctic rangelands – what they are,

where they occur • Biophysical characteristics and appearance, with

examples from the Northwest Territories • Grazing animals and predators in arctic and

subarctic rangelands • Range management in high latitude ecosystems,

with reference to North America and Europe. • Present and future value of ecosystem

classification

Rangeland defined • Society for Range Management 1998: “Rangelands are lands …(that are) managed as a

natural ecosystem…Rangeland includes natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, many deserts, tundras, alpine communities, marshes and meadows.”

• Rangelands also include forested ecosystems e.g. forests in boreal and subalpine areas and woodland-shrub ecosystems in the Subarctic.

Arctic and Subarctic defined

• ARCTIC – treeless shrub and graminoid tundra in low arctic, polar deserts in high arctic, continuous permafrost.

• SUBARCTIC – conifer dominated woodlands, discontinuous tundra, mostly continuous permafrost.

• Northern Boreal Zone of Europe = the Subarctic of North America.

North American Subarctic and Arctic Ecosystems

European Subarctic and Arctic Ecosystems

Why the big difference between NA and Europe? Global Climates : (1) Gulf Stream

•Warm waters flow north, cool, and sink: “conveyor belt” •These currents carry warmer water north of Norway

Source : American Scientist 94(4)

Scandinavia

Source : American Scientist 94(4)

Global Climates (2) Proximity to ice-free oceans •water stores more heat than land, releases it more slowly •Atmospheric circulation flows southwest to northeast across the Atlantic, transporting warm air eastward. •Oceans bordering the north coasts of North America and Asia are icebound.

North Am. Eurasia Eurasia

Climatic trends Regional climates determine Subarctic and

Arctic ecosystem distribution • Climate stations are sparsely distributed, but

permafrost and vegetation patterns are current and historic indicators of climatic influences

• Insolation, Temperature, Precipitation models indicate overall trends

North America – Canada Annual Solar Radiation mJ/m2

Source: Agriculture Canada

Subarctic and Arctic rangelands don’t get much solar energy, even in summer (low sun angles)

North America – Canada Mean Annual Temperature oC

Source: Agriculture Canada

Subarctic and Arctic rangelands are cold

North America – Canada Mean Annual Precipitation (mm)

Source: Agriculture Canada

Subarctic and Arctic rangelands are dry – polar deserts in the far north

Plants and permafrost distribution - indicators of climatic differences

Polygonal peat plateaus – High Subarctic

Jackpine – Low Subarctic, Boreal

Lodgepole pine, alpine fir – Cordilleran-boreal

Purple saxifrage barrens – High Arctic

Ice-wedge polygons – continuous permafrost

Overall plant productivity is indicative of climatic differences in the Arctic (above treeline)

Source: Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map 2003

Rangelands of Subarctic and Arctic Canada

• Northwest Territories landscapes are generally representative of subarctic and arctic landscapes in Yukon, Alaska and Nunavut

• The arctic/subarctic ecosystem (=rangeland) delineation in NWT is more comprehensive than elsewhere in Canada

• A few slides about that classification and how it was done...

Northwest Territories ecosystem classification (= regional range inventory)

• Initiated in 2004; revision to existing inventory needed for resource management

• Took 9 years to complete and involved – Focused and extensive field programs to collect

information – GIS mapping – Report preparation

Acknowledgements

• Colleagues Bas Oosenbrug, Bob Decker, Tom Chowns and Charles Tarnocai (all retired now) formed the core, with later assistance from Suzanne Carriere

• Dozens of people assisted with logistics

Classification and mapping concepts • Developed at outset of project and refined for specific

areas – consistent and explicit.

Field program • Provisional ecoregion classifications prior to

fieldwork aided transect planning. • Almost all of it depended on floatplanes and

helicopters (1.6 million km2 and few roads) • Aircraft management was a critical part of this

exercise – fuel availability, load limits, weather • Success = (Political will + technology +

availability of experts + availability of resources)

125,000 km in fixedwing and helicopter 70,000 oblique aerial/10,000 ground photos, 9 yr.

Aerial transects 2011 Arctic Islands

2009- Southern Arctic

2007- Cordillera

2006 – Taiga Shield

2005 – Taiga Plains

2010 Arctic Islands

Transect detail

YEAR MTH DAY WAYPOINT LAT LON Photolabel DIRECTION COMMENTS1

2005 8 14 677 66.0848 -121.911 NWT2005-08-14-001DSC_0677.jpg N Treeline | center of photo

Data record with each image captures themes

Ground stops About 200 shown, not including ground data from other studies

Fieldwork- the agony and the ecstacy

Blackfly hell... The white flecks are blackflies on the camera lens and in the air around the researcher

Direct transmission of terrain knowledge from the guru Charles Tarnocai

Data analysis • 80,000 photos and the associated descriptive notes

had to be downloaded, organized and reviewed

• Linked photos to locations by 1:1 match between waypoints and photo numbers on unique days

• Comments in the descriptive notes were used to create themes – Used these themes to help detect patterns – Themes were an important part of a multi-part

landscape analysis

Themes developed from aerial and ground records e.g. vegetation and permafrost indicators of climatic differences

Peat polygons – High Subarctic, organic soils

Jackpine – Low Subarctic, Boreal indicator

Lodgepole pine, alpine fir – Cordilleran-boreal indicator

Purple saxifrage barrens – High Arctic indicator

Ice-wedge polygons – continuous permafrost

Integration DEM,

hydrology, Landsat

Field data, themes

Wildlife – published info, field

obs.

Workshops, expert opinion

Aspatial data

Climate, vegetation

Geology, peatlands

Map, report, geodatabase

Further info: Reports and photos

Search for: • Government of NWT Ecosystem Classification • Government of NWT Ecosystem Photo

Quite a few changes from 1996 to 20XX classification

A tour of NWT ecosystems: Northern Arctic

Northern Arctic: Northern Islands rangelands

Northernmost NWT land, Borden Island

Sedge-moss-dwarf shrub tundra – sheltered locales

Rush-grass-forb-cryptogam tundra – Alopecuris (inset)

Prostrate dwarf shrub-herb tundra

Cryptogam-herb barrens

Northern Arctic: Banks and Victoria Islands

Dwarf shrub tundra

Snow geese on wet sedge tundra

Mountain avens, territorial flower, common tundra plant

Tree-sized willows and muskox, sheltered inlet

NWT ecosystems: Southern Arctic

Southern Arctic rangelands: Tundra Plains/Shield

Prostrate dwarf shrub-herb tundra – coastlines, higher elevations

Shrub tundra – moister, warmer sites in southern Arctic Erect dwarf shrub tundra, well

drained areas on the Shield

Barren ground caribou on lush sedge-cottongrass tundra, old lakebeds

NWT ecosystems: Taiga Shield

Taiga Shield: Subarctic rangelands

Till drumlins and lichen-dwarf shrub tundra, eastern High Subarctic

Bouldery till and vast tracts of burned forest, eastern Low Subarctic.

Barren ground caribou and shrub tundra, western High Subarctic

Open black spruce woodlands in the western Low Subarctic

NWT rangelands: Taiga Plains Subarctic

Tundra on dry hilltops, spruce woodlands in lowlands, High Subarctic

Taiga Plains: Subarctic Rangelands

Spruce woodlands and peat plateaus (organic, perhafrost) High Subarctic

Typical peat plateau (organic permafrost) and woodland complex, Low Subarctic.

Main grazers – North American Arctic/Subarctic

Peary caribou – restricted to Arctic Islands, small populations, smaller than barren-ground

Barren ground caribou – 650-750K in total, 11 major herds, mostly long migrations between summer/winter range

Muskoxen – range throughout Arctic/high Subarctic, almost all in North America, prefer sedges/grasses.

Caribou distribution North America – 6 of 11 main herds

Source: Gov’t NWT website

Main grazers – Scandinavia

Reindeer – semi-domesticated, estimated at 600,000 in subarctic and Southern Arctic Scandinavia. Migratory, usually tended by herders and used for transportation

Source: International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry website

Main predators – North America and Scandinavia

Bears – barren ground grizzly Wolverine

Tundra wolf – main caribou predator Golden eagle

“Predation by wolf, lynx, eagle and wolverine has a dramatic impact on reindeer herds, directly affecting herders in all areas” (International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry)

Lynx

Range management – North America vs. Scandinavia

• Primary concern is caribou or reindeer in both countries, with secondary focus on muskox in North America

• Reindeer herding contributes significantly to local economies especially in Europe/Asia

Reindeer herds and herders across the northern hemisphere

Source: International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry website

Across the northern hemisphere, caribou/reindeer are important food and clothing sources and are part of the culture of Arctic and Subarctic people.

North America • In NA, caribou and muskox are unconfined wild

populations – These populations fluctuate enormously e.g. Bathurst

herd 186,000 in 2003, 15-22,000 in 2015! – Climate fluctuations are important drivers, so are seasonal

events (e.g. freezing rain that limits access to forage) – Tracking population levels is key to managing – A lot of effort goes toward monitoring and co-managing

harvest levels (governments and local residents form co-management boards) and to research

– 2011-2015 barren ground caribou management strategy.pdf for NWT provides more details

Scandinavia and Asia

• Reindeer herds are actively managed • Herders have hundreds of years of experience

– There are established territories and family groups know their pastures and migration routes intimately

– Groups share resources in response to both ecosystem changes and social needs

– Government policymakers need to take traditional knowledge and views into account

How does regional range (ecosystem) classification help?

• Provides a common information base • Provides insights into how landscapes

influence range production • Helps with predictions of range condition

going forward – focuses monitoring efforts • Mapped ecosystems are benchmarks for

change, which is inevitable and constant.