Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
Managing eastern North American woodlands in a cultural context
David Schmitt, Roger Suffling ∗
School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1
Received 2 August 2004; received in revised form 27 September 2005; accepted 3 November 2005
Available online 3 April 2006
Abstract
The ecological context for the woodlands of much of eastern North America requires that they be understood as part of a cultural landscape.
The dominant urban and agricultural matrix of southern Ontario is a novel landscape with remnant woodlands embedded in it. It serves as a
model to understand how eastern forests have been regarded as representative of a previous wilderness landscape, but are profoundly affected by
historical anthropogenic forces and by external processes in the current cultural landscape. These woodlands change in unpredictable ways, as
envisaged in the new ecological paradigm, with no single, predictable ecological pathway, and no final stable state. Research, decision-making,
and management requirements for eastern woodlots are identified using this perspective. The paper summarizes specific research needs based on
previous publications and recent workshops concerning southern Ontario woodlots.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Woodland; Management; Ontario; Cultural landscape; Urbanization; Agriculture
1. Introduction
Southern Ontario is one of the most heavily modified landscapes in North America. However, the historical and current
processes of agricultural disturbance and reforestation, and of
permanent deforestation from urban expansion, are typical of
eastern North America as a whole. Thus this region can serve as
a model for how to view forested landscapes in the eastern half
of the continent (Fig. 1).
Prior to European settlement, the dominant vegetation in
southern Ontario was forest (Day, 1990; Moss and Davis,
1992; Keddy and Drummond, 1996; Larson et al., 1999; PuricMladenovic and Kenney, 2001). Original forests covered 90%
of the region with 70% of these being upland, but by 1978 southern Ontario had less than 20% forest cover (Larson et al., 1999).
The contemporary landscape is a typical agriculture–urban mix
with scattered remnant and novel woodland patches, and is thus
radically different from the original. However, planners and
managers of these remnant and new woodlands often assume
them to be natural and driven by natural processes (Schmitt,
2004; Schmitt and Suffling, in preparation). Thus, in survey
returns (Schmitt, 2004) by approximately 65% of urbanized
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 888 4567x3184; fax: +1 519 725 2827.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Suffling).
0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.008
Ontario municipalities of over 20,000 population, only 18% and
29%, respectively, of the departments responsible for planning
and managing woodlands had developed one or more conservation strategies, while 73% and 63%, respectively, stated they
had not developed any conservation strategies. Thirteen percent
(13%) of the planners stated that they were not sure how many
strategies they had. This paper addresses how our approach to
remnant woodlots in southern Ontario, should change in light of
the above. From this case study we shall draw general inferences
about eastern North American woodlots and their management
in a landscape context.
2. An Ontario case study
2.1. Biogeographical context of southern Ontario
Southern Ontario can be defined as the lands south and east
of the Precambrian shield (Fig. 2). It lies in the Mixedwood
Plains Ecozone. The Canadian Ecological Land Classification
divides the Mixedwood plains into site regions, 6E and 7E (Lee
et al., 1998), corresponding with the Manitoulin-Lake Simcoe and Lake Erie Lowlands ecoregions. Great Lakes Mixed
forest vegetation formerly dominated the Manitoulin-Lake Simcoe ecoregion, whereas the Lake Erie Plains ecoregion (also
known as the Carolinian Forest) had mostly deciduous forest
(Rowe, 1972). Braun (1950) classified these regions as part
458
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
Fig. 1. The area to which cultural woodlot management potentially applies.
of the larger Northeastern Forest Ecosystem. The considerable diversity of forests within and between these ecoregions
is caused by bedrock variations, topography, glacial deposits,
soils, climate, and disturbance history (Lee et al., 1998). Presence of forests, prairie and savannah, wetlands, and Great Lake
coastal systems further indicates the biodiversity of this region
(Riley and Mohr, 1994; Theberge et al., 1989). Indeed Lee et al.
(1998) identified over 80 vegetation communities in southern
Ontario.
2.2. The agricultural and forestry context of southern
Ontario
Southern Ontario was under agricultural influence from Iroquoian natives several centuries before the arrival of the first
Europeans, but these people did not exert a major impact outside of well defined regions such as “Huronia” on Georgian Bay
(Suffling et al., 2003). European settlement, starting significantly
in 1784, was a much greater influence on the forest landscape
(Day, 1990; Elliott, 1998). European farmers both enabled and
required new types of agriculture, especially large-scale permanent land clearance. By 1920 about 90% of the upland forest in
southern Ontario had been cleared (Larson et al., 1999, p. 7) and
this is an extreme instance of what happened throughout eastern
North America. (Matlack, 1997; Barnes et al., 1998, p. 479).
Changing forest values have characterized European use of
southern Ontario woodlands. In some areas, Red pine (Pinus
resinosa Ait.) ship masts were the favored product before and
during settlement Then, with the growth of cattle raising, Hemlock (Tsuga candensis (L.) Carr.) bark was in demand for
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
459
Fig. 2. Southern Ontario, showing features mentioned in the text.
leather processing, and Tamarack ties (Larix laricina (Du Roi)
K. Koch.) were needed by the nascent railway industry. Farmers kept Maples (Acer saccharum L.) for sugar sap extraction
while removing other species for potash production, and firewood. Later, sawlogs and firewood were cut and veneer logs
selected. Each activity has impacted forest species differentially
(Day, 1990; Elliott, 1998; Merriam, 1999; Larson et al., 1999;
Suffling et al., 2003). The same pressures can be seen generally
in the forests of eastern North America (Whitney and Somerlot,
1985; Whitney, 1990; McDonnell and Pickett, 1993; Peterken,
1996; Foster et al., 1997; McDonnell et al., 1997; Matlack,
1997).
One can also attribute the considerable variation in southern
Ontario forest to urban-to-rural and urban-to-wildland gradients. Areas of poor agricultural potential and those furthest
from the most intense agricultural and urban systems tend to
have the highest contemporary forest cover. Rocky Bruce and
Lanark counties, whose agriculture has declined, have 30.5%
and 40.1% cover, respectively, whereas intensively cultivated
Essex County has only 2.8% (Larson et al., 1999, p. 48). Thus the
vast, mostly contiguous forests once covering southern Ontario
have been significantly reduced in certain areas, virtually eliminated in some regions, and have rebounded modestly in others.
This is reflective of general trends in eastern North America (Flinn and Velland, 2005). Today, fragmented forest rem-
nants are the norm in this relatively new agricultural and urban
matrix.
2.3. Urban sprawl impacts
The population of the Greater Toronto area (GTA) has risen
from 1.1 million in 1950 to 5.1 million in 2001, and is projected
to be 7.1 million by 2028 (Anon, 2003). The economy and population are expanding rapidly along most of the North shore of
Lake Ontario, creating a sprawling “Los Angeles-style” megalopolis. Deforestation is occurring at alarming rates in this most
rapidly urbanizing region of Ontario, and notably in the GTA
(Chant et al., 1999). The forest cover proportion in suburban
areas has been reduced dramatically, as in Markham with only
3.2% cover (Tamminga, 1996). In York region, forest cover has
declined 30–50% from 1975 to 1988. During this time, the number of forest patches has increased, while patch size and forest
interior areas declined (Puric-Mladenovic et al., 2000). There is
greater loss of upland communities in contrast to the better protected wetlands, and this has occurred even among the patches
designated as ecologically significant (Ouellet and Suffling,
1992). These processes are typical of those in other expanding
urban regions in eastern North America (Alig et al., 2003).
The Provincial Policy Statement (Ontario Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997) requires that
460
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
municipalities define and protect Significant Woodlands. Our
research (in preparation) found that, by 2003, only 56% of the
municipalities had identified Significant Woodlands in their
municipality, and less than 50% had carried out comprehensive
natural heritage planning exercises seven years after they
were required to implement these policies. As the Provincial
Policy Statement coincided with massive urban expansions
many of whose plans had been approved in previous years,
municipalities have not been able to comply effectively with
the Policy Statement.
Not only is the area of forest plummeting in urbanizing areas,
but the ecological structure and function of remaining forest
patches is greatly compromised. Researchers observe dramatic
differences in urban forest flora and fauna, atmospheric and soil
chemistry, and ecosystem processes in comparison with rural
systems (e.g. Bradley, 1995, p. 67; Pouyat and Carreira, 2003;
Lovett et al., 2000; Steinberg et al., 1997; Gregg et al., 2003;
Wear et al., 1998; Pickett et al., 2001; Hutchinson, 1999).
2.4. Woodlots are mostly secondary forest
Peterken (1996), working in a European cultural context,
termed woodland that has persisted since before the original
forest was fragmented as primary, and patches that regenerated
after clearance as secondary. The process of clearance and reforestation continues to this day in eastern North America (Suffling
et al., 2003; Zipperer et al., 1990; Matlack, 1997). About 68%
of southern Ontario’s current forest cover is secondary (Larson
et al., 1999, p. 52) and 25% of woodland area in the St. Jacobs
area of the Region of Waterloo is secondary (Martin, 1991). In
rapidly urbanizing Markham 13.6% is natural vegetation (not
all of which is forest) and 58% of this is secondary (Tamminga,
1996). The process of reforestation has been most marked in
marginal farming areas (Suffling et al., 2003) and secondary
woodlands are thus an important component of the current forest
estate in southern Ontario. The process of clearance and subsequent reforestation is widespread in eastern North America (e.g.
Foster et al., 1998) so again, southern Ontario is representative
of the larger system.
The secondary woodlands vary from monotypic pine and
spruce plantations to semi-natural regeneration after the land
was idled. As secondary woodlands vary widely in structure
(May, 1995; Elliott, 1998) one may expect differences in ecosystem function, and this is a neglected topic that needs to be
addressed systematically. While the temperate forest of North
America is well recognized for its resilience to natural disturbances such as tornadoes, it has not fared as well in the face
of anthropogenic perturbations (Foster et al., 1997). Moss and
Davis (1992) noted changes in species occurrence, dominance,
and habitat structure for surviving southern Ontario woodlands,
and Suffling et al. (2003) documented the virtual disappearance
of whole forest types. Similarly, Foster (1993), working in New
England, found general changes in forest structure due to human
impact and identified new successional trajectories that result.
McLachlan et al. (2000) have even questioned if the old-growth
attributes of certain New England forests are natural or if they
really result from human activities.
2.5. Exotic species compromise woodlot ecology
Introduced diseases such as Chestnut blight (Cryphonectria
parasitica (Murrill) Barr) and Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma
ulmi (Buisman) Nannf.) have exerted major and continuing
impacts on southern Ontario forests, but their full effects are
unknown (Castello et al., 1995). Further alien pathogens and
insect pests arrive with increasing frequency as international
trade burgeons and these are, or will be ecologically disruptive.
Currently, they include emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis
Fairmaire), Asian longhorn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis Motschulsky), butternut canker (Sirococcus clavigignentijuglandacearum V.M.G. Nair, Kostichka and Kuntz) and beech
bark disease (an interaction between the native fungus Nectria galligena Bres. in Strass. and several introduced scale
insects).
Ontario woodlands are also changing at the understorey and
soil level. Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata [Bieb] Cavara and
Grande), periwinkle (Vinca minor L.) and European buckthorn
(Rhamnus cathartica L.) are all common invaders of deciduous
woodland. The widespread introduction of non-native earthworms is changing the soil of woodlots, as has been documented
in neighboring US states (Hale et al., 2005; Gundale et al., 2005).
It appears that the woodlots most affected by exotic species are
more urban and more impacted by recreational activities and
trails, but this phenomenon has not been addressed systematically in the research literature.
Thus there is solid evidence that historical and ongoing
human activity is changing the ecological structure and functions of these remnant natural areas. However, accepting this
truth is difficult because many of the influences are subtle and
the lag times for their full effect can be considerable.
3. General inferences
3.1. Incorporating cultural woodland as a North American
concept
How can one generalize from this Ontario case? Southern
Ontario woodlots, and woodlands in eastern North America
generally, are strongly influenced by human activities and face
new and profound stresses, many of which are poorly understood. Nowak (1994) and Nowak et al. (1996) emphasized
that urban woodlots, in particular, are complex systems that
evolved through interaction of natural and human processes,
while Merriam (1999) has made similar arguments for southern Ontario forests in general. Such forests are therefore mostly
heavily altered woodland patches in an artificial matrix of agriculture and urban development. They are not really “islands of
green” as originally characterized by Francis (1977) but are just
less altered patches in a thoroughly cultural landscape.
Researchers and land managers in Europe have long used the
concept of cultural landscapes (McCollin et al., 2000; Thomas
et al., 1997). Peterken (1996, p. 4) defined them as “dominated by the effects of past and present management” where
humans have cleared most of the original forest. Watkins (1998)
has described the long history of European forests in providing
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
domestic, agricultural, industrial and military services so that
such landscapes result from past management policies and are
closely linked to important events and cultural developments in
human history. While the length of intense human occupation
has been strikingly shorter in North America than in Europe, the
landscape has been transformed almost as profoundly to meet
the aspirations of its human inhabitants.
The cultural landscapes construct has also been taken up
in North America. At the Lockwood conference on suburban
forests (Waggoner and Ovington, 1962), Pierre Dansereau suggested that most of the state of Connecticut was a “suburban
forest”, a semi-domesticated area between garden and forest.
Stephen Spurr, likewise suggested that “the suburban forest is
all of Connecticut except a strip along Long Island . . . It is really
one great ecosystem”. Pollan (1991) has echoed this argument.
Similarly, Burgess and Sharpe (1981) referred to Wisconsin’s
landscape as human dominated and controlled, arguing that
“some or all of the biota are in disequilibrium with the current landscape patterns”, and southern Ontario has been termed
a settled or cultural landscape (Riley and Mohr, 1994; Moss and
Davis, 1992; Pearce, 1992; Perera et al., 2000, p. 81). Foster
and Motzkin (2003) noted the importance of treating certain
New England ecosystems as cultural systems, but observed that
this would probably be met with resistance from within the
conservation community. The issue of North American conservationists finding difficulty in recognizing the value of highly
human modified systems has also been raised by Norment (2002)
who attributes this to an exclusive focus on native species and to
a philosophy of restoring conditions of a particular era. In addition, most thinking on how to manage woodlots in eastern North
America originates in ideas of North American landscape ecology founded in studies of large wilderness tracts (e.g. Burgess
and Sharpe, 1981; Pickett and White, 1985; Turner et al., 2001;
Urban et al., 1987; Forman, 1995). Thus we believe that the
wilderness orientation of much of North American ecology continues to colour the attitudes of conservationists towards remnant
woodlots that are now cultural entities.
3.2. The “New Ecology” and cultural woodland
Much research and woodland management fails to reflect
the recent paradigm shift in ecology (McDonnell, 1997; Pickett
et al., 1992; Botkin, 1990). The New Ecology recognizes that
ecosystems are: (1) open, (2) controlled by both internal and
external processes, (3) exhibit multiple equilibria, (4) have multiple, probabilistic successions, (5) are subject to natural disturbances, and (6) include humans and their influences. In contrast,
the older “Equilibrium paradigm” envisions a stable end point or
climax community and self-regulated ecosystems less affected
by outside processes. The role of humans was also treated as
insignificant (often by omission), and there was a strong focus
on the “balance of nature”. The new ecological paradigm factors
in global and local anthropogenic influences, as well as acknowledging limited understanding of these systems. We neither know
the original state of southern Ontario woodlands (Suffling et al.,
2003), nor do we fully understand their future trajectory under
a cascade of human influences.
461
3.3. The current research context
The knowledge gaps regarding woodland patches in agricultural and urban landscapes exist, in part, because ecologists
lacked interest in such areas (McDonnell et al., 1997), but there
is now a growing literature, such as material in the new journal, Urban Ecology. Strobl (1998) called for more research on
remnant woodlands, as did Larson et al. (1999), and The Natural Heritage of Ontario’s Settled Landscapes (Riley and Mohr,
1994) has been the framework for several of these initiatives.
Friesen (1998) identified research needs regarding the optimal
size and function of buffer zones, along with how these vary
with different types and intensities of neighboring land uses.
He envisaged human impacts on the suburban forest as edge
effects analogous to microclimate and vegetation edge effects
but exceeding these in both severity and spatial extent. Larson
et al. (1999) identified key topics for further research including:
(1) a need for greater understanding of pre-settlement conditions, (2) mapping of old-growth and similar (>100 years old)
forest stands in forest inventories, (3) improved incentives for
landowners to conserve woodlands, (4) standard practices for
setbacks and buffer zones around woodlands, (5) management
practices that promote old-growth conditions, (6) connections
and linkages, (7) educational material, and (8) ongoing monitoring of southern Ontario woodlands.
In Ontario, interest in urban woodlots has been fuelled by
the Ontario Provincial Planning Policies (Ontario Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997) that acknowledged a
need to protect significant woodlands as natural heritage. This
policy initiative has influenced the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources to issue conservation guidelines, including those from
Lee et al. (1998), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (1999),
and Anon (2000), and these complements other work such as
Oldham et al. (1995) and Ontario Nature (2004). However, it is
unclear whether these conservation guidelines are appropriate
or whether they will work. Riley and Mohr (1994) have referred
to the current natural heritage planning exercises in Ontario as
“the most significant ecological experiment being carried out in
southern Ontario”. Flores et al. (1998) stated that, while there is
a “modern ecological framework”, inappropriate and outdated
ecological concepts continue to be used in land-use planning.
Though the Ontario Provincial Government has introduced these
natural heritage policies, it provides little financial support for
research or monitoring to determine what is working. Therefore ideas such as adaptive management, which is part of the
new ecological paradigm, are not being supported with these
policies.
4. Conclusion
As we are neither in a position to fully understand the original
woodland system nor to re-establish the ancient forest landscape, we are obliged to devise a more benign cultural system.
If we recognize that we should be both creating a new ecological landscape and preserving altered fragments of an old one,
then we shall have more success than is possible merely by
scrambling to preserve fragments of the old system. Research,
462
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
planning, and management should facilitate both rehabilitation
and restoration in this milieu, and should explicitly acknowledge
management uncertainties using the new ecological paradigm.
Adaptive management (Walters and Hilborn, 1978) also has a
role here.
This relatively small body of research on eastern North American urban woodlands, and specifically in southern Ontario,
reflects the scant regard of society for such systems. Further,
lack of tangible support for related policies suggests that politicians, planners, managers and the public still believe that, once
protected, natural areas take care of themselves. Ideas about
woodland recreation, restoration, and management are low on
the political agenda (Schmitt, 2004), and we still debate whether
all or only a part of the surviving 19% forest cover of southern
Ontario is of high value (Puric-Mladenovic and Kenney, 2001)!
If the focus is really on protecting significant woodlands, have
we really made any progress from the planning of nearly 30 years
ago that saved “Pieces of Green” (Francis, 1977)? The current
approach in a milieu of rampant urbanization is to define which
woodlands are significant and therefore worthy of saving, with
the implication that the rest must be sacrificed on the altar of
“highest and best use”. Such discussions, driven by government
policy under the agenda of natural heritage planning, are not
based on current thinking in ecology, but rather on expediency,
land economics and legal precedent. To be fair, Ontario society
has begun to recognize functional and heritage reasons for preserving larger habitat fragments, as on the Oak Ridges Moraine
and in the Rouge River Valley. However, as we preserve these
remnants and the matrix between them, we should ask if we
have yet learned to manage them wisely. As humans are the
dominant drivers in these preserved systems, and as many natural processes have been dimmed or altered there, we face the
unwelcome truth that southern Ontario’s woodlands are cultural
features, not wilderness, and society should undertake the fiscal,
research and planning responsibility to manage them accordingly. To the extent that we continue to believe that eastern North
American woodlands are pure remnants of an original forest, we
shall both fail to fully conserve them and jeopardize their successful management.
Therefore, explicitly acknowledging the following during
land-use decision-making, and during regular management
should help to foster appropriate management for North American cultural woodlands:
(1) The eastern North American woodland and its matrix constitute a landscape that exhibits intertwined natural and
cultural legacies. Both the natural features and cultural
practices can be evaluated for ecological quality.
(2) Every landscape and every woodlot has an existing management regime. The regime can be benign or otherwise, and can be characterized by intervention or passivity
(whether by neglect or judicious inaction).
(3) Every landscape is in the process of re-invention, and the
desired ecological quality of the result can be defined and
evaluated. Ecological processes often take effect over long
time spans, with distinct lag or latent periods. Management
and evaluation must recognize this explicitly.
(4) As relatively natural systems are very rare in this context (Larson et al., 1999), they should be managed with
a view to minimal intrusion by recreational and other
functions.
(5) Heavily modified systems should be actively managed to
retain ecological function and services while maintaining
and building capacity to resist or reverse negative ecological change. Neglect should not stand as a metaphor for
wilderness preservation.
(6) Where traditional or historical management systems have
functioned well in (4) and (5), above, they may best be
maintained.
(7) The cultural matrix and the woodlot should be considered as a single system. The management of the matrix
between woodlots should consider effects on the woodland fragments. Such effects include, but are not limited
to, connectivity for desirable species as well as for invasive
exotics, pests, predators and parasites, and the interior/edge
effect.
(8) In woodlots, every management action is effectively an
experiment. Whenever possible, research questions should
be formulated and tested both to monitor actions and policies, as well as to enhance management skills.
(9) Policy makers, planners and managers must shift from
classical ecology to the new ecological paradigm, because
adaptive, experimental management will only succeed if
applied within the new paradigm.
(10) Woodland conservation in a cultural landscape must consider the social component and involve the community. Management that ignores social concerns will often
encounter resistance that jeopardizes the original goals.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the International Society of Arboriculture,
Canadian Research Trust, for providing funding for this project
though a Jack Kimmel Research Grant.
References
Alig, R., Plantinga, A.J., Ahn, S., Kline, J.D., 2003. Land Use Changes Involving
Forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, With Projections to 2050. US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experimental Research Station, Corvallis, OR, PNW-GTR-587.
Anon, 2000. A Silvicultural Guide to Managing Southern Ontario Forests.
Ontario Woodlot Association. Queens Printer for Ontario, Toronto,
ON. http://www.ont-woodlotassoc.org/silvic/index.htm (accessed 9th June
2004).
Anon, 2003. Ontario Population Projections 1999–2028. Government of
Ontario, Ministry of Finance Information Centre, Toronto, ON.
Barnes, B.V., Zak, D.R., Denton, S.R., Spurr, S.H., 1998. Forest Ecology. John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Botkin, D., 1990. Discordant Harmonies—A New Ecology for the Twenty-First
Century. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Bradley, G., 1995. Urban forest landscapes: Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. In: Bradley, G. (Ed.), Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, pp.
3–11.
Braun, E.L., 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston,
Philadelphia, PA.
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
Burgess, R.L., Sharpe, D.M., 1981. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated
Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Castello, J.D., Leopold, J.D., Smallidge, P.J., 1995. Pathogens, pattern and processes in forest ecosystems. Bioscience 45, 16–24.
Chant, D.A., Heidenreich, C.E., Roots, B.I., 1999. Special Places: The Changing
Ecosystems of the Toronto Region. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Day, D.J., 1990. The dynamic nature of Ontario’s forests from post-glacial
times to the present day. In: Old-Growth Forests. Canadian Scholars’ Press,
Toronto, ON, pp. 63–112.
Elliott, K.A., 1998. The forests of southern Ontario. Forestry Chronicle 74,
850–854.
Flinn, K.M., Velland, M., 2005. Recovery of forest plant communities in postagricultural landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 243–250.
Flores, A., Pickett, S.T., Zipperer, W.C., Pouyat, R.V., Pirani, R., 1998. Adopting a modern ecological view of the metropolitan landscape: the case of a
greenspace system for the New York City region. Landscape Urban Plan.
39, 295–308.
Foster, D.R., 1993. Land-use history and forest transformation in central New
England. In: McDonnell, H.A., Pickett, S.T. (Eds.), Humans as Components
of Ecosystems—Ecology of Subtle Human Effects and Populated Areas.
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 91–110.
Foster, D.R., Aber, J.M., Mellilo, R.D., Bowden, R.D., Bazzaz, F.A., 1997. Forest
response to disturbance and anthropogenic stress. Bioscience 47, 437–445.
Foster, D.R., Motzkin, G., Slater, B., 1998. Land-use history as long-term
broad-scale disturbance: regional forest dynamics in central New England.
Ecosystems 1, 96–109.
Foster, D.R., Motzkin, G., 2003. Interpreting and conserving the openland habitats of coastal New England: insights from landscape history. Forest Ecol.
Manage. 185, 127–150.
Forman, R.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Francis, G.R., 1977. Pieces of green. Ont. Nat. 17, 13–19.
Friesen, L.L., 1998. Impacts of urbanisation on plant and bird communities in
forest ecosystems. Forestry Chronicle 74, 855–860.
Gregg, J.W., Jones, C.G., Dawson, T.E., 2003. Urbanization effects on tree
growth in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424, 183–187.
Gundale, M.J., Jolly, W.M., Deluca, T.H., 2005. Susceptibility of a northern hardwood forest to exotic earthworm invasion. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1075–1083.
Hale, C.M., Frelich, L.E., Reich, P.B., 2005. Exotic European earthworm invasion dynamics in northern hardwood forests of Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Appl.
15, 848–860.
Hutchinson, T., 1999. The impact of urbanization on maple forests of southern
Ontario an urban–rural comparison. In: Southern Ontario Woodlands—The
Conservation Challenge. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
Keddy, P.A., Drummond, C.G., 1996. Ecological properties for the evaluation,
management and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecol.
Appl. 6, 748–762.
Larson, B.M., Riley, J.L., Snell, E.A., Godschalk, H.G., 1999. Woodland
heritage of southern Ontario. In: A Study of Ecological Change, Distribution and Significance. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills,
ON.
Lee, H.T., Bakowsky, W.D., Riley, J.L., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P.,
McMurray, S., 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario:
First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, South-Central Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, FG-02.
Lovett, G.M., Traynor, M.M., Pouyat, R.V., Carreira, M.M., Zhu, W.X., Baxter, J.W., 2000. Atmospheric deposition to oak forests along an urban–rural
gradient. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 4294–4300.
Martin, V.E., 1991. Primary and Secondary Woodlands: Their Identification and
Implications for Natural Heritage Protection in the Regional Municipality
of Waterloo. Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
ON.
Matlack, G.R., 1997. Four centuries of forest clearance and regeneration in the
hinterland of a large city. J. Biogeogr. 24, 281–295.
May, S.K., 1995. Red Pine Plantations in a Changing Southern Ontario Environment: Diverse Opportunities for Landscape Planning. Dissertation. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON.
463
McCollin, D., Moore, L., Sparks, T., 2000. The flora of a cultural landscape:
environmental determinants of change revealed using archival sources. Biol.
Conserv. 92, 249–263.
McDonnell, M.J., 1997. A paradigm shift. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 85–86.
McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T., 1993. Humans as Components of
Ecosystems—Ecology of Subtle Human Effects and Populated Areas.
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T., Groffman, P.M., Bohlen, P., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C., Parmalee, R.W., 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban-torural gradient. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 21–36.
McLachlan, J.S., Foster, D.R., Menalled, F., 2000. Anthropogenic ties to late
successional structure and composition in four New England hemlock stands.
Ecology 81, 717–733.
Merriam, G., 1999. Survival of fragmented woodland systems in southern
Ontario. In: Southern Ontario Woodlands: The Conservation Challenge. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, ON, pp. 32–36.
Moss, M.R., Davis, S., 1992. Forest species and habitat changes in the agricultural landscape of southern Ontario: Wellesley Township. In: Ingram,
G.B., Moss, M.R. (Eds.), Landscape Approaches to Wildlife and Ecosystem
Management. Polyscience, Morin Heights, PQ, pp. 149–167.
Norment, C., 2002. On grassland bird conservation in the Northeast. Auk 119,
271–279.
Nowak, D.J., 1994. Understanding the structure. J. Forestry 92, 42–46.
Nowak, D.J., Rowntree, R.A., McPherson, E.G., Sisinni, S.M., Kerkmann, E.R.,
Stevens, J.C., 1996. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape
Urban Plan. 36, 49–57.
Oldham, M.J., Bakowsky, W.D., Sutherland, D.A., 1995. Floristic Quality
Assessment System for Southern Ontario: Rare Vascular Plants. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing Provincial Policy Statement (1997). Ontario Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1997.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Toronto, ON.
Ontario Nature, 2004. Suggested Conservation Guidelines for the Identification of Significant Woodlands in Southern Ontario. http://www.
ontarionature.org/pdf/Significant Woodlands Guidelines(Draft%20Aug%
202004).pdf (accessed Sepember 13, 2005).
Ouellet, P., Suffling, R., 1992. Nibbling away: critical habitat changes in
an urbanising region. In: Ingram, G.B., Moss, M.R., Landscape (Eds.),
Approaches to Ecosystem Management. Polyscience Publications, Morin
Heights, PQ, pp. 135–148.
Pearce, C.M., 1992. Pattern analysis of forest cover in southern Ontario. East
Lakes Geographer 29, 65–76.
Perera, A.H., Euler, D.E., Thompson, I.D., 2000. Ecology of a Managed Terrestrial Landscape: Patterns and Processes of Forest Landscapes in Ontario.
University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC.
Peterken, G.F., 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern
Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Pickett, S.T., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Nilon, C.H., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C., Costanza, R., 2001. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial
ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. System. 32, 157.
Pickett, S.T., Parker, V.T., Fiedler, P.L., 1992. The new paradigm in ecology:
implications for conservation biology above the species level. In: Fiedler,
P.L., Jain, S.K. (Eds.), Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of
Nature Conservation, Preservation and Management. Chapman and Hall,
New York, NY, pp. 65–88.
Pickett, S.T., White, P.S., 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch
Dynamics. Academic Press, New York, New York.
Pollan, M., 1991. Second Nature: A Gardener’s Education. Dell, New York, NY.
Pouyat, R.V., Carreira, M.M., 2003. Controls on mass loss and nitrogen dynamics
of oak leaf litter along an urban–rural land-use gradient. Oecologia 135,
288–298.
Puric-Mladenovic, D., Kenney, W.A., Csillag, F., 2000. Land development pressure on peri-urban forests: a case study in the regional municipality of York.
Forestry Chronicle 76, 247–250.
464
D. Schmitt, R. Suffling / Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 457–464
Puric-Mladenovic, D., Kenney, W.A., 2001. A model of potential natural
vegetation and gap-analysis for forest planning and management in settled landscapes. In: Proceedings of the Conference “Woods Talk: Community Action to Conserve Ontario’s Woodlands”, 14–17 June 2001,
York University, Toronto. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills,
ON.
Riley, J.L., Mohr, P., 1994. The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario’s
Settled Landscapes. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora,
ON.
Rowe, J.S., 1972. The Forest Regions of Canada. Department of the
Environment Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa, ON, Publication
1300.
Schmitt, D., 2004. Urban Woodland Conservation in Southern Ontario. Dissertation. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON.
Steinberg, D.A., Pouyat, R.V., Parmalee, R.W., Groffman, P.M., 1997. Earthworm abundance and nitrogen mineralization rates along an urban–rural
land use gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 427–430.
Strobl, S., 1998. Towards a list of science priorities for the conservation and
management of southern Ontario forests: results of a workshop. Forestry
Chronicle 74, 838–849.
Suffling, R., Evans, M., Perera, A., 2003. Historical old-growth in Southern
Ontario: forest measured through a cultural prism. Forestry Chronicle 79,
485–501.
Tamminga, K., 1996. Restoring biodiversity in an urbanising region: towards
pre-emptive ecosystems planning. In: Plan Canada, July 10–15.
Theberge, J.B., Theberge, M., Barr, D., Mosquin, T. (Eds.), 1989. Legacy: The
Natural History of Ontario. McLelland and Stewart, Toronto, ON.
Thomas, R.C., Kirby, K.J., Reid, C.M., 1997. The conservation of a fragmented
ecosystem within a cultural landscape: the case of ancient woodland in England. Biol. Conserv. 82, 243–252.
Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., O’Neill, R.V., 2001. Landscape Ecology: In Theory
and Practice. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.
Urban, D.L., O’Neill, R.V., Shugart, H.H., 1987. Landscape ecology. Bioscience
37, 119–127.
Waggoner, P.E., Ovington, J.D. (Eds.), 1962. Proceedings of the Lockwood Conference on the Suburban Forest and Ecology. New Haven, CT, Connecticut
Agricultural Experimental Station. Bulletin 652.
Walters, C.J., Hilborn, R., 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System. 9, 157–188.
Watkins, C., 1998. European Woods and Forests: Studies in Cultural History.
CAB International, Wallingford, U.K.
Wear, D.N., Turner, M.G., Naiman, R.J., 1998. Land cover along an urban–rural
gradient: implications for water quality. Ecol. Appl. 8, 619–630.
Whitney, G.G., 1990. The history and status of hemlock-hardwood forests of
the Allegheny Plateau. J. Ecol. 78, 443–458.
Whitney, G.G., Somerlot, W.J., 1985. A case study of woodland continuity and
change in the America Midwest. Biol. Conserv. 31, 265–287.
Zipperer, W.C., Burgess, R.L., Nyland, R.D., 1990. Patterns of deforestation
and reforestation in different landscapes in central New York. Forest Ecol.
Manage. 36, 103–117.