# Presentation: 681752

**EI Monitoring – Science Challenges**

## Condition Monitoring

**Monitoring conducted over the whole park in the long term to detect major trends in park EI - “What is the state of park EI?”**

**Monitoring conducted over small areas to assess the effectiveness of specific park management actions – “What are we doing to improve park EI?”**

**Management Effectiveness Monitoring**

## Common Issues/Common Solutions

**Generally the same elements are missing in almost all park monitoring programs **
**Permanent, long term monitoring of ecosystem process measures at local and landscape scales**
**conceptual ecosystem models linking EI components (biodiversity, processes, stressors) for major park ecosystems to EI Measures and Indicators**
**‘****final suite’ of EI measures **
**management targets and thresholds for EI Measures **
**assessment methodologies for EI Indicators**

**Given the same missing program elements we can work together to develop common solutions to park EI monitoring and reporting issues**

## Science Challenges

**How do we ‘capture EI’?**
**What do we measure?**
**What do our measurements mean? **
**C****ommunicate****!!!**

## ‘Capturing EI’

**EI monitoring framework **
**major park ecosystems as EI indicators**
**core conceptual ecosystem models **
**local and landscape scales of measurement**

## Ecosystem Realms and Major Park Ecosystems

**UPLANDS**

**FRESHWATER**

**MARINE**

**COASTAL**

**WETLANDS**

**inter-tidal**
**sub-tidal**
**near-shore**
** ****pelagic**

**forests/woodlands**
**arctic/alpine tundra**
**grasslands**
**other non-forested**

**rivers/streams**
**lakes/ponds**

**beaches**
**dunes**
**cliffs**

**lagoons**

**riparian,**
**wetlands**

**estuaries**

***MPEs for Great Lakes Bioregion**

## EI Indicator

**Science environment**

**Public environment**

**feedback**

**biodiversity/processes**

**human dimension**

**stressors**

**EI Indicator**

**measures/data**

**statistics**

**models**

**EI Impaired**

**High EI**

**Concerned**

**major park ecosystems**

## EI INDICATORS by BIOREGION

| The North | Pacific Coastal | Interior Plains | Great Lakes | Quebec Atlantic | Montane Cordilleran |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Forest | Forests and woodlands | Forest | Forest | Forest | Terrestrial Ecosystems |
| Tundra | Non-forest | Grasslands | Non-forest | ‘Barrens’ |  |
| Wetlands | Lakes and wetlands | Wetlands | Wetlands | Wetlands | Aquatic Ecosystems |
| Freshwater | Streams and rivers | Lakes | Lakes | Freshwater (Lakes) | Native Biodiversity |
| Glaciers | Islets/shorelines | Streams | Streams | Freshwater (Streams) | Geology and landscapes |
| Coastal | Inter-tidal |  | Great Lakes Shore | Coast | Climate and atmosphere |
| Marine | Sub-tidal |  |  | Marine | support for EI |

**EI INDICATORS by BIOREGION**

## Ecological Integrity Monitoring Framework

- - 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 (fire. insects, flooding)*
- - vegetation age class distributions*
**Productivity**
- - landscape  or by site
**Decomposition**
- -by site
**Nutrient retention**
- Ca, N by site

**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

**Biodiversity**

**Process and Function**

**Stressors**

**Ecological Integrity Monitoring Framework**

## Ecologically Comprehensive

| Forests |  |
| --- | --- |
| Wetlands |  |
| Lakes |  |
| Streams |  |
| ‘Barrens’ |  |
| Coastal  |  |
| Marine |  |

**EI INDICATOR***

**Biodiversity**

**Processes**

**Stressors**

**EI FRAMEWORK**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

**√**

- * EI indicators for Atlantic-Quebec Bioregion

## Forest EI Indicator

**Data**

**Stand Level**
** ****Forest EI**

**Landscape Level Forest EI**

**tree productivity, songbird  index, salamander populations change, foliar nutrient index, decomposition efficiency**

**dbh, canopy condition, species composition, chopstick dry weight loss, songbird/salamander density, relative soil  arthropod abundance, foliar nutrient concentrations**

**FF BioD Index (SAR, top predators, ungulates), CFBioD Index (ecosystem representation), connectivity, productivity **

**Forest EI Indicator**

**SAR and other species population assessments, relative ecosystem abundance, Fragstats, AVHRR**** **

**Models**

**Measures**

**Critical**

**Concerned**

**Healthy**

## Core Bioregional Forest Stand Model

**Core Bioregional Forest Stand Model**

## Core Bioregional Forest Landscape Model

**Core Bioregional Forest Landscape Model**

- disturbance

## Roles of Ecosystem Conceptual Models

**reduce ecosystem complexity:** essential components of biodiversity, processes and stressors (EI) to prioritize monitoring measures; organize protocols and measures
**COMMUNICATE approach and results:**
- science peers inside and outside parks
- park managers, interpreters etc
- all Canadians
**improve EI assessments:** conceptually related and co-located measures (long term plot data) provides internal logic
**incorporate other park management activities:** ecological frame for including restoration, infrastructure changes, visitor changes, operational changes, etc

## Forest EI Indicator

**Data**

**Stand Level**
** ****Forest EI**

**Landscape Level Forest EI**

**tree productivity, songbird  index, salamander populations change, foliar nutrient index, decomposition efficiency**

**dbh, canopy condition, species composition, chopstick dry weight loss, songbird/salamander density, relative soil  arthropod abundance, foliar nutrient concentrations**

**FF BioD Index (SAR, top predators, ungulates), CFBioD Index (ecosystem representation), connectivity, productivity **

**Forest EI Indicator**

**SAR and other species population assessments, relative ecosystem abundance, Fragstats, AVHRR**** **

**Models**

**Measures**

**Critical**

**Concerned**

**Healthy**

## Conceptual Model – Streams

## Reporting Park EI

**Forests**

**Wetlands**

**Lakes**

**Streams**

**Marine**

**SOP synopsis**
** ****(indicators)**

**science foundation (measurements and models)**

**6-8 EI Indicators**

**Coastal**

## given the vast number of things we could measure, what do we measure?
PSOCLCIEIMs – the Holy Grail
measuring the park – study designs

**PSOCLCIEIMs – the Holy Grail**
**measuring the park – study designs**

**What to Measure and**
** ****How to Measure it?**

## The Holy Grail

**To find a ****parsimonious suite of co-located, ecologically inter-related EI measures**** that provide a comprehensive summary of park forest EI at an acceptable financial and human resources cost**

## Forest EI Indicator

**Data**

**Stand Level**
** ****Forest EI**

**Landscape Level Forest EI**

**tree productivity, songbird  index, salamander populations change, foliar nutrient index, decomposition efficiency**

**dbh, canopy condition, species composition, chopstick dry weight loss, songbird/salamander density, relative soil  arthropod abundance, foliar nutrient concentrations**

**FF BioD Index (SAR, top predators, ungulates), CFBioD Index (ecosystem representation), connectivity, productivity **

**Forest EI Indicator**

**SAR and other species population assessments, relative ecosystem abundance, Fragstats, AVHRR**** **

**Models**

**Measures**

**Critical**

**Concerned**

**Healthy**

## Selecting Measures

**cost-effective, information-rich, low signal to noise**
**credible – supported by science community/research**
**feasible to measure (technical field staff); ‘same day suites’**
**comes with a ‘story’, e.g., soil arthropods?**
**works well as part of a ecologically-integrated suite that covers conceptual model components**
**shared by monitoring partners (provinces/territories, communities, model forests, industry)**

## FOREST STANDS

| Ecosystem Component | 
Ecosystem Process | Ecosystem Stressor | 
Proposed Measures |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| soil humus
mineral soil
vegetation
herbivores
carnivores  | soil mineral weathering
humus decomposition
nutrient uptake
plant productivity
plant recruitment
plant mortality
herbivory
predation  | acid deposition
climate change
air pollution
trampling
harvesting
invasive aliens  | soil decomposition index
foliar nutrient concentrations
vegetation plot data
forest songbirds
forest salamanders
soil arthropods 
arboreal lichens |

**FOREST STANDS**

## Core Bioregional Forest Stand Model

**Core Bioregional Forest Stand Model**

## FOREST LANDSCAPES

| Ecosystem Component | Ecosystem Process/Function | Ecosystem Stressor | Proposed
Measures |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  landforms/soils
 forest communities
 large herbivores
 large carnivores

 |  landscape connectivity
 interior forest function
 landscape level productivity 
 coarse filter biodiversity
 fine filter biodiversity
 stand-replacing disturbance
 landform processes (flooding and sedimentation, coastal erosion, permafrost depth) |  climate change
 acid deposition
 other pollutants
 park infrastructure
 visitor effects 
 harvesting 
 invasive aliens
 GPE effects
 |  fragmentation metrics
 ecosystem productivity  
 habitat suitability and  population viabilities of    managed species
 ecosystem representation
 phenological observations
 invasive alien index
 landform changes |

**FOREST LANDSCAPES**

## Core Bioregional Forest Landscape Model

**Core Bioregional Forest Landscape Model**

- disturbance

## Establishing Long Term Monitoring General Rules

**For all EI indicators data on biodiversity, processes and stressors should be collected at 2 scales – local and landscape**
**Representative local ecosystems of the major park ecosystem (forest stands, eelgrass beds, stream reaches, kelp beds, wetland types) need to be selected for measurement based on available resources, park management priorities and bioregional approaches**
**Whole park and greater park measures and assessments of indicators based on EO/RS – GIS data  **

## Changes in Forest Site - Spatial Variability 

## Changes in Forest Structure – Temporal Variability 

## FOREST ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION

| 
Forest Site | 
SMR/SNR | Shrub Herb | Young Forest | Mature Forest  | 
Old Forest |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| dry outcrops;
coarse soils | dry/poor  | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| coarse-textured tills, mors | mesic/poor | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| medium-textured tills, mors | mesic/medium | 5 | 5 | 25 | 5 |
| medium-textured tills with seepage, moders | moist/rich | 1 | 1 | 15 |  2 |
| Bogs | wet/poor | 0 | 0 | 5 | 15 |
| Swamps | wet/rich  | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |

**FOREST ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION**

## Selecting ‘Representative Ecosystems’

- average (mesic) ecosystems
- most abundant ecosystems
- ecosystems with high conservation importance
- ecosystems most sensitive to known stressors
-  **base poor ecosystems susceptible to acid rain**
**droughty ecosystems where prolonged summer drought is forecast **

## Slide 31

## N

**N**

**E**

**W**

**S**

- 50m

- 5m

- Arthropod traps

## A CO-LOCATED, ECOLOGICALLY INTER-RELATED SUITE OF LOCAL FOREST EI MEASURES

**A CO-LOCATED, ECOLOGICALLY INTER-RELATED SUITE OF LOCAL FOREST EI MEASURES**

## Forest EI Indicator

**Data**

**Stand Level**
** ****Forest EI**

**Landscape Level Forest EI**

**tree productivity, songbird  index, salamander populations change, foliar nutrient index, decomposition efficiency**

**dbh, canopy condition, species composition, chopstick dry weight loss, songbird/salamander density, relative soil  arthropod abundance, foliar nutrient concentrations**

**FF BioD Index (SAR, top predators, ungulates), CFBioD Index (ecosystem representation), connectivity, productivity **

**Forest EI Indicator**

**SAR and other species population assessments, relative ecosystem abundance, Fragstats, AVHRR**** **

**Models**

**Measures**

**Critical**

**Concerned**

**Healthy**

## What’s the question?
What’s the answer?
Developing targets and thresholds. 

**What’s the answer?**
**Developing targets and thresholds. **

**Targets and Thresholds**

##  “What is the state of park EI?”

**The question is.............**

## Humus Decomposition Sub-model

**Humus Decomposition Sub-model**

_**soil biota**_** interactions and processes**

## Targets, Baselines and  Thresholds

**42**

**Dry Weight Loss of Wood Decomposition Standard**
**(percent dry weight loss)**

**‘****precautionary principle’**

## Establishing Targets and Thresholds

**Establishing Targets and Thresholds**
**Soil Decomposition**

## Clear Monitoring Questions

- H01: local scale (stand level) forest ecological integrity has not changed significantly over the last 5 years in mature eastern hemlock ecosystems in Kejimkujik NP
- 	**H****01.1****: soil humus decomposition has not changed more**
**	****	**** ****than 35%**
**	****H****01.2****: forest salamander population densities have not**
**	****	**** ****decreased more than 12%**
**	**** ****H****01.3****: foliar N concentrations have not decreased more**
**	****	**** ****than 0.5% foliar dry weight**
**	****etc**

## Communicating EI Monitoring

**Nutrient Cycling**

## most parks are not ‘natural’ and have had historical impacts that require management/restoration   
active landscape management is required to meet park conservation needs – prescribed burning, ecosystem restoration, species re-introductions, alien invasives
management activities require performance reporting targets to assess progress towards desired goals; landscape targets will be set against patterns of natural successions and disturbance
‘Desired condition’ targets for terrestrial landscapes need to be based on ‘desired conservation services’ the landscape can realistically provide  

**active landscape management is required to meet park conservation needs – prescribed burning, ecosystem restoration, species re-introductions, alien invasives**
**management activities require performance reporting targets to assess progress towards desired goals; landscape targets will be set against patterns of natural successions and disturbance**
**‘****Desired condition’ targets for terrestrial landscapes need to be based on ‘desired conservation services’ the landscape can realistically provide  **

**‘****Desired Condition’ for****Forest Landscapes: Rationale**

## ‘Desired Condition’ forForest Landscapes: Conservation Services 

**Habitat suitability: **for focal species, e.g., charismatic, major park ungulates and carnivores, indicators, keystones, species at risk
**Ecosystem representation:** rare ecosystems, old forests, structural stage targets
**Landscape productivity:** within historical range of productivity as measured by NDVI or NPP
**Landscape pattern:** desired states for connectivity/fragmentation
**Landscape processes:** ice features (permafrost, thermokarst, solifluction etc), flooding regimes, mass wasting rates,
**Operational and safety needs:** fire/fuel management, RoWs, roads and visitor access/use, harvesting

## EI Assessment of Change Analysis Data

**EI Assessment of Change Analysis Data**

## Hypothesis Testing/Monitoring Questions

- H01: landscape scale forest ecological integrity has not changed significantly over the last 5 years in Kejimkujik NP
- 	**H****01.1****: fragstat index target**
**	****H****01.2****: forest ecosystem representation target**
**	**** ****H****01.3****:  white tailed deer density is between 0.25 and 0.75 animals/ha**
**	**** ****H****01.4****: cow:calf ratio in white tailed deer is greater than 1.2**
**	**** ****H****01.5****: NPP of forest landscapes is between ? and ?**
**	****etc**

## EI Assessments

**What is the state of park EI?**
**How to defensibly Integrate and assess monitoring results to report the state of the park?**
**IBI approaches – stress gradients**
**‘****Internal logic’ / rule systems based on conceptual ecosystem models**

## Bruce Peninsula National Park

## Bruce Peninsula National Park

- Stress Gradients

## 1

**1**

**3**

**5**

- salamander
- abundance

- forest bird
- richness

- effective
- patch size

- decomposition

- regeneration
- (height class)

- productivity
- (NDVI)

- lichen
- diversity

- crown
- vigor

- fragmentation
- (ENN)

**BIODIVERSITY**

- PROCESSES

- STRESSORS

- 0

- 45

- 0

- 22

- 0.2

- 78.4

- 11%

- 89%

- 0

- 13

- 0.1

- 0.9

- 14

- 35

- 0%

- 20%

- 50

- 250

- 15

- 30

- 7.3

- 14.6

- 26.3

- 52.6

- 37%

- 63%

- 10%

- 5%

- 3

- 6

- 0.4

- 0.7

- 21

- 28

- 117

- 184

- Measures to Indicators

- Simple Roll Up

## Measures to Indicators

**Simple Roll Up**

## LTEMPs

**vegetation**

**mineral soil**

**soil humus**

**herbivores**

** ****carnivores**

**predation**

**nutrient/moisture**
**uptake**

**decomposition**

**herbivory**

**climate**
**change**

**human**
** ****effects**

**LTEMPs**

**humus decomposition**

**soil arthropods**

**foliar nutrients**

**growth/health of stand dominants**

**species diversity/dominance/abundance**

**ingress/mortality**

**EMAN plot data**

**epidemic insect outbreaks**

**forest salamanders**

**forest songbirds**

## The Day Monitoring Became Cool

**What an excellent monitoring measure – a top predator and one of a conceptually inter-related suite of measures to assess aquatic ecosystem EI**

**That man is so cool – he’s monitoring EI**

**The Day Monitoring Became Cool**

**Notes:**
This is a large northern pike caught during a fish monitoring program at Beartrap Creek in Prince Albert National Park.  The fish was subsequently tagged and released.