TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.0 RELATIONSHIP TO SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................................................. 11 3.0 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 13 4.0 SPECIES RICHNESS ......................................................................................................................... 16 4.1 RATIONALE ...................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 18 4.2.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 20 4.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 22 4.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 26 5.0 SPECIES AT RISK DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................................................... 28 5.1 RATIONALE ...................................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 29 5.2.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 30 5.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 32 5.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 35 6.0 PRESSURES ON SPECIES AT RISK .................................................................................................... 36 6.1 RATIONALE ...................................................................................................................................... 36 6.2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 38 6.2.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 38 6.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 39 6.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 42 7.0 MEASURES TO PROTECT SPECIES AT RISK ..................................................................................... 45 7.1 RATIONALE ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Table of Contents | Page 2 7.2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 48 7.2.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 49 7.3 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 51 7.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 55 8.0 OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................................. 59 9.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 62 10.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 63 COMPREHENSIVE SPECIES LIST REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 68 DISTRIBUTION MAP OVERLAYS REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 70 11.0 GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 71 12.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 73 APPENDIX A: FRONTENAC ARCH BIOSPHERE SPECIES LIST ...................................................................... 73 Herpetofauna ........................................................................................................................................ 75 Birds ...................................................................................................................................................... 79 Mammals .............................................................................................................................................. 93 Vascular Plants ...................................................................................................................................... 99 APPENDIX B. GUIDE TO METADATA ....................................................................................................... 147 Detailed Information on Species List References ................................................................................ 149 Table of Contents | Page 3 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. The Nested Approach to Sustainability. ............................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2. Methodology for Species Richness Analysis. ........................................................................................ 18 FIGURE 3. A Snapshot of the Comprehensive Species List in Excel. ...................................................................... 19 FIGURE 4. Distribution Map of Blanding’s Turtle. ................................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 6. Species at risk Distribution Map with Land Use Overlay. ..................................................................... 40 FIGURE 7. Species at risk Distribution Map with Major Roads Overlay ................................................................ 40 FIGURE 8. Species at risk Distribution Map with Minor Roads Overlay ................................................................ 41 FIGURE 9. Species at risk Distribution Map with Wetlands Overlay. .................................................................... 41 FIGURE 10. Potential Areas for Increased Conservation Efforts. .......................................................................... 44 FIGURE 11. Tertiary Watersheds within the Biosphere. ....................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 12. Species at Risk Distribution Map with Major Protected Areas Overlay. ............................................ 54 Table of Contents | Page 4 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Summary of Indicators. ............................................................................................................................ 7 TABLE 2. COSEWIC and OMNR Definitions of Levels of Species at Risk Classifications. ........................................ 15 TABLE 3. Species Richness Indicators and Rationale. ............................................................................................ 16 TABLE 4. Data Sources for the Comprehensive Species List. ................................................................................. 18 TABLE 5. Taxonomic Sequences Used for the Comprehensive Species List. ......................................................... 20 TABLE 6. Species Richness Results. ....................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 7. Spatial Assessment of Total Species Richness Significance. ................................................................... 23 TABLE 8. Spatial Assessment of Species Richness Significance for Each Species Group. ...................................... 23 TABLE 9. Spatial Assessment of Species Richness Significance for Each Species Group at Risk with an Ontario Designation. .................................................................................................................................................. 24 TABLE 10. Spatial Assessment of Species Richness Significance for Each Species Group at Risk with a Federal Designation. .................................................................................................................................................. 24 TABLE 11. Analysis of Species with a Single Reference. ........................................................................................ 25 TABLE 12. Species at risk Distribution Indicators and Rationale ........................................................................... 28 TABLE 13. Blanding’s Turtle Sightings in Comprehensive Species List. ................................................................. 30 TABLE 14. Species at Risk. ..................................................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 15. Pressures on Species at Risk Indicators and Rationale. ........................................................................ 36 TABLE 16. Population Figures for Larger Cities and Townships in the Bisophere. ................................................ 39 TABLE 17. Measures to Protect Species at risk Indicators and Rationale. ............................................................ 45 TABLE 18. An Overview of the Official Plans of Upper and Single Tier Municipalities. ......................................... 51 TABLE 19. An Overview of the Strategic Plans of Conservation Authorities. ........................................................ 52 Table of Contents | Page 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The overarching goal of this study was to evaluate the presence and distribution of flora and vertebrates in the Frontenac Arch Biosphere (FAB) in order to provide a baseline of information that contributes to the protection and sustainability of biodiversity into the future. This was accomplished through a compilation of a comprehensive species list of vascular flora and vertebrates found within the biosphere as well as distribution maps that highlight pressure and response indicators for species at risk. Table 1 outlines the indicators that were utilized in this report to measure the sustainability of biodiversity in the area. Indicator themes include (1) species richness, (2) species at risk distribution, (3) pressures on species at risk, and (4) measures to protect species at risk. The compilation of the comprehensive species list allowed for an analysis of species richness. Findings show that there are 1,592 vascular flora and vertebrates in the biosphere. Spatial significance is seen when comparing species richness figures in the biosphere to that in Ontario and Canada. The analysis illustrates the importance of biodiversity in the biosphere at both the provincial and national scale and provides concrete statistics that can be used when advocating for increased protection and awareness with businesses, governments, and other stakeholders. The species at risk analysis shows that there are 46 different species at risk in the biosphere with Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) designations under the Endangered Species Act, with a subset of 34 species also having a Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) national status designation. Data from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) was used to map the distribution of as many of these species as possible within the biosphere. However, limitations in the dataset were seen, as distribution data was only available for 23 species at risk and flaws in the data were discovered. This resulted in a change in direction compared to the original objectives set out at the onset of this study. Several overlays that represent pressures on biodiversity were mapped onto the distribution map created with the NHIC data. These include land use, roads, and wetlands. Mapping analysis was also paired with data on population in order to analyze potential anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity. Findings show that population is not an immediate threat to biodiversity. As well, most land use in the region is designated as parks and recreation or open area, thus allowing for preservation of species at risk habitats. Roads potentially affect the dispersion of species, but the overall effects are minimal compared to denser urban areas. Furthermore, the analysis of wetlands led to a recommendation of three key areas that can be further evaluated for increased protection. Executive Summary | Page 6 The study concluded with an evaluation of measures to protect species at risk. Analysis of municipal plans highlights the need for an Official Plan in the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville in order to strengthen regulations and monitoring programs in the area. The conservation authorities were found to have adequate Strategic Plans for watersheds, with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority leading the way with the most comprehensive plan to protect biodiversity. Finally, an overlay of protected lands was mapped onto the distribution map of species at risk created with NHIC data. Findings show that the location of current major protected areas corresponds with the presence of species at risk. However, conclusions must be reassessed once flaws in the NHIC data have been corrected and a distribution map of all 46 species at risk is created. Overall, the report was successful in providing a baseline of information that can be expanded upon with further study and monitoring programs. Several recommendations were also presented in order to ensure the protection of biodiversity into the future. TABLE 1. Summary of Indicators. Pressure, state and response (PSR) indicators provide a broad indication on the condition of the environment. It is important to examine all three types of indicators in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the state of the environment, how it arrived at its current state, what is influencing its current state, and efforts that are being taken to improve this state (Levrel et al., 2009). Pressure indicators highlight potential stressors on the environment that are influencing its current health. State indicators provide a reference of where the current state of the environment stands. Finally, response indicators show what is being done in order to improve the current state of the environment or reduce the pressures. INDICATOR PSR RATIONALE SPECIES RICHNESS Total species richness S Insufficient data currently exists. Total species richness helps to justify current conservation efforts and direct future efforts. Species richness of mammals, herpetofauna, birds, and plants S Insufficient data currently exists. A focus on vertebrates is justified by the high correlation between species richness and overall biotic diversity. A focus on flora is justified by the fact that vegetation is an indicator of ecosystem type and therefore, animals and plants harbored within the particular ecosystem. Percentage of species in the biosphere at risk S Species at risk are a national and provincial priority for conservation. This figure will indicate the level of conservation efforts that should be directed towards the biosphere. Percentage of species in Ontario found in the FAB S Data will be used to analyze the significance of species richness in the biosphere. Percentage of species in Canada found in the FAB S Data will be used to analyze the significance of species richness in the biosphere. Executive Summary | Page 7 Percentage of species at risk in Ontario found in the FAB S Data will indicate the level of conservation efforts that should be directed towards the biosphere on a provincial scale. Percentage of species at risk in Canada found in the FAB S Data will indicate the level of conservation efforts that should be directed towards the biosphere on a national scale. SPECIES AT RISK HOTSPOTS Number of species at risk and designations S Lack of existing understanding. Information needed for completion pulled from comprehensive species list. Species at risk distribution S Displays where at least one Species at risk is known to be located. PRESSURES ON SPECIES AT RISK Population density P Observe where greatest pressure lies, which will help justify current conservation efforts and direct future efforts. Land use P Identify which land uses are placing the greatest pressure on species. This will help justify current conservation efforts and direct future efforts. Roads P Observe areas of greatest concern and determine effect road density is placing on biodiversity. Results will enable planning of conservation efforts. Wetlands P Identify areas of particular interest that support an array of species in order to recognize areas that may benefit from protection. MEASURES TO PROTECT SPECIES AT RISK Official Plans of Municipalities R Anthropogenic alteration of the environment can reduce habitat availability. Alternatively, plans may include zoning or policies that protect species at risk. Important for identifying future opportunities. Strategic Plans of Watersheds R The scale, priorities, and years covered in strategic plans can be evaluated to determine whether sensitive species & habitats are adequately protected by their conservation authorities (organized by watershed). Major Protected Lands R Correlation (or lack thereof) between locations of 23 species at risk and protected areas indicate how successfully protected areas were planned and identifies future opportunities. Executive Summary | Page 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Frontenac Arch Biosphere (FAB), which covers approximately 2700 km2 in the southeast of Ontario, was designated as a biosphere reserve under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Programme. This area, where the Frontenac Arch and St. Lawrence River intersect, is one of the most biodiverse in Canada as it encompasses five distinct forest regions that contain a rich diversity of plant, insect and animal species (UNESCO, 2012). In addition to being a significant migration corridor for an array of species, this area also acts as a stepping-­‐stone for species travelling from north to south. One of the main focuses of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network (FABN)1 is to “conserve the diversity of plants, animals and microorganisms which make up our living ‘biosphere’ and maintain healthy natural systems while, at the same time, meeting the material needs and aspirations of an increasing number of people” (FABR, 2012). For an area to be designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, it must be representative of a unique biogeographic region while containing landscapes, ecosystems, and species diversity that require protection (FABR, 2012). Thus, the FAB has a direct connection to the theme of biodiversity. Since the FAB is such an area of high ecological significance, the protection of biodiversity within its boundaries is of utmost importance in order to ensure that the needs of future generations can be met. Therefore, it is crucial that biodiversity be thoroughly understood if we wish to create a sustainable future that ensures the future enjoyment and use of the FAB. Biodiversity is important for ecological, economic, social, and cultural sustainability. All of these are intertwined, interdependent, and inevitably tied to the state of the environment. As defined by the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, biodiversity is “… the variety of species and ecosystems on Earth and the ecological processes of which they are a part” (Canadian Biodiversity, 2012). A high level of biodiversity directly influences ecosystem health, and a healthy ecosystem in turn benefits all aspects of sustainability. This report aims to develop indicators that will evaluate the current status of biodiversity in the FAB. Indicators are measurable surrogates for environmental endpoints, such as biodiversity, and are assumed to be of value to the public (Noss, 1990). Specifically, successful indicators are sufficiently sensitive to provide an early warning of change; widely applicable or distributed across a broad geographical area; capable of providing a continuous assessment over a wide range of stress; relatively independent of sample size; simple 1
For the purposes of this report, “the FAB” or “the biosphere” will refer to the geographic region while “the FABN” will refer to the network of individuals and organizations that govern the area. Introduction | Page 9 and cost-­‐effective to measure; easily differentiable between natural cycles and those caused by anthropogenic stress; relevant to ecologically significant phenomena (Noss, 1990). The overarching goal of the FABN’s partnership with the Queen’s Environmental Science Honours Pojrect (ENSC 430) class is to produce a comprehensive State of the Environment (SOE) report for the entire biosphere. Through SOE reports, the public and various stakeholders are provided with information on the current status of their environment, economy, and culture. Indicators, as described above, are used to provide an indication of this status and draw complete conclusions. This report represents the Biodiversity section of the final SOE report produced by ENSC 430. Specifically, it will provide a baseline of information for future monitoring programs and conservation efforts through (1) compiling a comprehensive species list in order to evaluate species richness, (2) creating species at risk distribution maps with overlays that represent various pressures on biodierisity, and (3) analyzing current measures to protect species at risk. The creation of the comprehensive species list represents the main portion of the work conducted in this report and will be particularly useful for farmers, birdwatchers, hunters, gardeners, visitors of the FAB, the FABN officials themselves, and parks located within the biosphere. Alongside knowledge of species at risk and their distribution across the FAB, this work will assist the local area in focusing its conservation efforts. By knowing which species are at greatest risk, relevant stakeholders will be able to create rehabilitation projects that are catered towards specific species. Furthermore, if trends are observed with map overlays, the FABN will be able to target their projects towards certain areas or certain activities that appear to be causing the most harm. Species that are designated as endangered often receive protection that affects the lives of the people in the areas in which that species lives. Hence, if the FABN is able to take proactive action, then fewer drastic changes will be required in the future. A focus on biodiversity and sustainability in the SOE report will help to increase an understanding of the range of species that make the Frontenac Arch their home, the significance of these species, and ways to preserve this diversity, which will ultimately improve the sustainability of biodiversity in the FAB. Introduction | Page 10 2.0 RELATIONSHIP TO SUSTAINABILITY FIGURE 1. The Nested Approach to Sustainability. Sustainability can be viewed as the final goal to which the FABN strives to reach. Reaching this goal would mean establishing a community within the FAB that “creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations” (USEPA, 2012). To reach this goal all aspects of the community must undergo sustainable development as it grows and adapts into the future. As seen in Figure 1, sustainability can be viewed as having three key components: environment, society and economy. The environment provides the basis on which society and economy are developed. In order for the FAB to be sustainable it must maintain the quality of the natural environment, or society and economy will not thrive. Biodiversity is one of several factors that play a key role within the environment and is essential to protect the quality of the world’s natural processes. When completing an SOE report, biodiversity is an important component to include as it is interconnected to many other aspects. Failure to include this theme would make it impossible to provide a clear indication of sustainability. Air quality, water quality, tourism, waste, and many other components often included in an SOE are all impacted by biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides. For example, the FAB’s tourism industry relies on the area’s unique forest cover as a sightseeing attraction. A loss of tree species in the FAB would result in a decrease of visitors to the region, and therefore, decreased economic growth from businesses that rely on the tourism. Data from the comprehensive species list compiled in this report will contribute to an understanding of species diversity that is strongly linked to sustainability. Species diversity contributes to the stability of an Relationship to Sustainability | Page 11 ecosystem and therefore affects its ability to be maintained into the future. Additionally, the analysis of species at risk distribution and pressures on the current habitat will allow the FABN to isolate problems that are hindering the ability of species to be sustainaed. A brief analysis of responses to known problems will furthermore highlight whether the FABN is making enough contributions to guarantee sustainability of biodiversity in the region. Biodiversity is one of several factors that play a role within the environment, and by preserving the FAB’s biodiversity, we are helping to ensure its overall sustainability. Relationship to Sustainability | Page 12 3.0 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The specific goal for the biodiversity theme within the comprehensive SOE report is to evaluate the presence and distribution of vascular flora and vertebrates in the biosphere in order to provide a baseline of information that contributes to the protection and sustainability of biodiversity into the future. Measurable objectives that will lead to this goal are as follows: •
Objective #1: Compile a first-­‐ever comprehensive species list of vascular flora and vertebrates in the Arch using pre-­‐existing species lists from across the FAB. •
Objective #2: Draw conclusions regarding species richness in the FAB and assess spatial significance by comparing figures with that in Ontario and Canada. •
Objective #3: Create a list of species at risk in the FAB and distribution maps for these species. •
Objective #4: Analyze influences on biodiversity in the biosphere by overlaying multiple factors on the distribution maps (e.g. protected areas, land cover, roads, wetlands, etc.). The first section of our research consists of a comprehensive species list for the entire FAB region, compiled using pre-­‐existing species lists from a variety of sources such as provincial databases and park species lists. This is analyzed through a number of comparisons as detailed in Table 1 and through hypothesizing why anomalies where a species is only mentioned in one source occur. The second part of our research consists of creating a list of species at risk found in the FAB, then creating distribution maps for species at risk with map data available. Overlays of protected areas, land cover types, roads, and other Pressure-­‐State-­‐Response indicators will be mapped onto the species distribution map to draw conclusions regarding the anthropogenic influences on biodiversity. Finally, municipal plans and watershed plans will also be compared, but are not available in map overlay form. The spatial scope of the study encompasses the entire FAB. For the species list, the scope is slightly narrowed to areas that have pre-­‐existing species lists or other relevant records such as monitoring databases. However, the sources used cover a majority of the FAB’s area. Species at risk mapping covers the entire Arch. Temporally, species lists and species at risk data are for the most part from the past two decades. This was not narrowed by our group, but is incidental to data availability. In terms of conceptual scope, species studied were narrowed to vascular plants and vertebrates, and further scoped down in the second part of our research to the 23 species at risk with mapping data available. Goal and Objectives | Page 13 The broad spatial scope of the entire FAB is used in order to create baseline data that provides a complete snapshot of biodiversity of vascular plants and vertebrates in the biosphere. FABN officials have indicated that a comprehensive species list would be useful to them; thus, we have sought out various species lists and databases from across the FAB. For the species at risk, it is crucial to include the entire biosphere boundary so that their distribution may be better understood and protected. Temporally, only recent (within past two decades) species lists, databases, and species at risk sightings were used because only those were available. This is satisfactory as this project attempts to provide a current snapshot of biodiversity in the biosphere. Due to the short length of this project (3 months), only vascular plants and vertebrates are included in the species lists. The presence and location of vertebrates is used as a surrogate to represent other types of biodiversity not included, such as insects (Margules & Pressey, 2000). Plant and vertebrate lists will also be the most useful to the FABN as they are easiest to identify and monitor, and in terms of tourism, generate the most interest from visitors. Aquatic species were excluded (except for semi-­‐aquatic amphibians) due to time constraints and because aquatic ecosystems are so disparate from terrestrial ecosystems. This narrowing of the conceptual scope of our project is further discussed in Section 4.1. Distribution mapping was narrowed to species at risk because identifying areas of concern for these more vulnerable species will act as an umbrella to protect all other species within their same ecosystems. Both the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) definitions and classifications of species at risk are used, as defined in Table 2 below. Any species with a designation other than Not at Risk, Extirpated or Extinct were considered as a “species at risk.” Extirpated and Extinct were excluded as they would no longer exist in the FAB and thus are not useful for the purposes of providing a baseline snapshot of current biodiversity in the region. Our research focuses on these species as surrogates for all biodiversity since they have been identified as organisms that are particularly sensitive to anthropogenic or natural disruption whose populations may be or have already been diminished by these (Margules & Pressey, 2000; COSEWIC, 2003). Their distribution indicates areas of high concern and, when map overlays are added, can indicate where further protection is needed or where conservation efforts have been successful thus far. Goal and Objectives | Page 14 TABLE 2. COSEWIC and OMNR Definitions of Levels of Species at Risk Classifications. Source: COSEWIC, 2003; OMNR, 2010. Classification Definition Special Concern A species exhibiting characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic factors or natural disruptions Threatened A species poised to become endangered if action is not taken to limit its anthropogenic or natural pressures Endangered A species on the brink of extinction (no longer existing) or extirpation (no longer existing in the wild) Goal and Objectives | Page 15 4.0 SPECIES RICHNESS 4.1 RATIONALE TABLE 3. Species Richness Indicators and Rationale. INDICATOR PSR RATIONALE Total species richness S Insufficient data currently exists. Total species richness helps to justify current conservation efforts and direct future efforts. Species richness of mammals, herpetofauna, birds, and plants S Insufficient data currently exists. A focus on vertebrates is justified by the high correlation between species richness and overall biotic diversity. A focus on flora is justified by the fact that vegetation is an indicator of ecosystem type and therefore, animals and plants harbored within the particular ecosystem. Percentage of species in the biosphere at risk S Species at risk are a national and provincial priority for conservation. This figure will indicate the level of conservation efforts that should be directed towards the biosphere. Percentage of species in Ontario found in the FAB S Data will be used to analyze the significance of species richness in the biosphere. Percentage of species in Canada found in the FAB S Data will be used to analyze the significance of species richness in the biosphere. Percentage of species at risk in Ontario found in the FAB S Data will indicate the level of conservation efforts that should be directed towards the biosphere on a provincial scale. Percentage of species at risk in Canada found in the FAB S Data will indicate the level of conservation efforts that should be directed towards the biosphere on a national scale. There is currently insufficient data on the number of species that inhabit the biosphere and of species that migrate through the north-­‐south corridor of the Frontenac Arch itself or the east-­‐west route of the St. Lawrence Valley (FABN, 2012). While individual species lists for various areas within the biosphere have been compiled, a comprehensive species list has not been assembled until now. As a result, there has been no readily available data on the total number of species in the biosphere – also known as species richness (Boulinier et al., 1998). Efforts to determine species richness for various areas has increased over the past decade, as global loss of biodiversity has accelerated due to the effects of climate change (Waide et al., 1999). Particularly, species richness analysis has been of use in determining the number of species encompassed by existing Species Richness | Page 16 reserves as well as where efforts for future reserves should be directed in order to protect the optimal number of species (Scott et al., 1987). The concept of species richness is widely regarded in the biological sciences community as the principal criterion to establish conservation priorities (Fleishmen et al., 2006). In terms of the FABN, quantitative data on mammals, herpetofauna, plants and birds is of use when advocating for the protection of biodiversity in the region and increasing awareness with relevant stakeholders such as businesses, governments, and the general public. Identifying species richness in the region will ensure appropriate management actions are initiated to reduce the number of species made critically endangered. As commonly noted in biological literature, “the time to save a species is when it is still common” (Edge, as cited in Scott et al., 1987). This study focuses particularly on vertebrate and flora species richness. Vertebrate species richness can be used as an indicator of overall natural diversity as vertebrate niches are shaped by biotic, abiotic and cultural factors such as “the community food web, total available biomass and vegetation structure and productivity” (Scott et al., 1987). Besides representing the most readily available and quantifiable indicator of biotic diversity, vertebrates play a major role in community interactions which, according to Scott et al. (1987), argues for a high correlation between vertebrate species richness and overall natural diversity. Vegetation data is also useful as it allows for the identification of unique or rare habitat areas that are likely to harbor significant concentrations of particular plant and animal species (Scott et al., 1987). As mentioned in Section 3.0, non-­‐vascular plants, aquatic species, and invertebrates were not included within the scope of this analysis based on limitations within the timeline of this project. This study on species richness in the biosphere serves as the first comprehensive compilation of species lists within the FAB boundary. The following data acts as a baseline of information and the indicators analyzed provide a snapshot of the current state of biodiversity in the region. The baseline information will prove useful for future investigations on spatial or temporal trends in species richness as well as the effects of various environmental factors on the local occurrence of species. Species Richness | Page 17 4.2 METHODS Data acquisinon Compilanon of exisnng species lists from various sources in Excel Assess significance by comparing with species richness figures in Ontario and Canada Esnmate species richness using count data FIGURE 2. Methodology for Species Richness Analysis. Data was acquired and compiled in Excel, which resulted in count data on species richness. These figures were then compared and contrasted with figures in Ontario and Canada in order to assess significance. Data for the comprehensive species list was acquired through a detailed search of existing records within and around the FAB boundary from various organizations, as listed in Table 4. For organizations that did not readily provide information online, a formal request was sent to a key representative of the organization. TABLE 4. Data Sources for the Comprehensive Species List. Note that the numbers below correspond with the reference numbers used in metadata (see Appendix B). REF # DATA SOURCE METHOD OF ACQUISITION 1, 20 Queen’s University Biological Station Available online. 2 Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Formal request sent via email. Received soft copy of records. 3 Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Available online. 4 Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) Obtained through the Queen’s University Library database. 5 Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Available online. 6 Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas Available online. 7 Species Checklist for the Thousand Islands Available online. 8-­‐10, 12, 18 Kingston Field Naturalists Hard copies of BioBlitz data available at the Queen’s Library. 11 Charleston Lake Provincial Park Formal request sent via email. Hard copies of data received in the mail. 13 Frontenac Provincial Park Formal request sent via email. Hard copies of data received in the mail. 14-­‐17, 19 Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Formal request sent via email. Received soft copy of records. Species Richness | Page 18 Information from each pre-­‐existing species list was compiled using Excel. Four tabs were created for mammals, herpetofauna, birds, and plants in a single Excel spreadsheet in order to easily sort through the data and eliminate double entries. Family names were also recorded for each species group as well as orders for herpetofauna. A column was created to represent each reference, as shown in Figure 3. This allows for an analysis of the presence of each species in the biosphere based on the number of references available. For instance, if a particular species is only listed under a single reference source then the species was flagged as potentially extirpated with an asterisk in Column A. FIGURE 3. A Snapshot of the Comprehensive Species List in Excel. The “=counta” function was used in Column E to determine the number of references that cited each species. The “=if” function was used in Column A to flag species with a single reference with an asterisk. E.g. A3=if(E3=1,”*”,””). Upon compiling all pre-­‐existing species lists, double entries were eliminated using the “=if” function to find doubles in both common name and Latin name. Vertebrate and flora species richness was then determined using the “=count” function in Excel. This corresponds with the methods of most species richness studies, which utilize count data (the total number of species recorded in an area at a given time). This is justified by the fact that counts are used to understand why locations differ in the number of species, what controls the number of species, and why some locations are more species-­‐rich than others (Fleishman et al., 2006). In accordance with this method, records of species lists present during sampling sessions carried out at different times in different locations were used to estimate the species richness of the biosphere community (Boulinier et al., 1998). In order to assess the significance of the data, species richness figures were compared with the total number of species in Ontario and Canada as well as comparisons for each of the species groups Species Richness | Page 19 (herpetofauna, birds, mammals, and vascular plants). Finally, the comprehensive species list was sorted into families using the taxonomic sequences outlined in Table 5. TABLE 5. Taxonomic Sequences Used for the Comprehensive Species List. SPECIES GROUP TAXONOMIC SEQUENCE Herpetofauna Species list template from the Queen’s University Biological Station Birds The American Ornithologists’ Union Check-­‐List of North American Birds (7th Edition) Mammals Wilson & Reeder’s Mammal Species of the World (3rd Edition) Vascular Plants The Integrated Taxonomic Information System 4.2.1 Limitations While most studies on species richness utilize count data as estimates of species richness, issues of discrepancies in the data arise when records of species lists from various sampling sessions over different points in time are compiled (Boulinier et al., 1998). Research by Boulinier et al. (1998) shows that there is a need to take into account potential heterogeneities in time and place when analyzing factors affecting species richness. For instance, current data is limited, as species lists have been compiled from as early as the 1950s from NHIC data to recent studies in 2012 conducted by the Kingston Field Naturalists. As such, an analysis of temporal and spatial effects on species richness is limited in this study. Nonetheless, this research provides a baseline of data, which can be improved upon in future monitoring programs. Another source of error is inherent in species identification by humans, especially regarding plants. Many species look very similar and may have been recorded incorrectly in species lists, particularly in the Kingston Field Naturalists BioBlitz sources, which are compiled by amateur volunteers. This may result in the appearance of a species only once in the species list, which we may analyze in this report to be an anomaly associated with extirpation or rareness of this species, when in actuality the error occurred in the initial recording process. As much as possible, species lists that utilized a clear methodology for actual sightings were compiled. The exception to this was the inclusion of the hypothetical list from the Smithsonian Institute of Natural History as well as Reichl’s Species Checlist for the Thousand Islands Ecosystem, which was for the most part hypothetical but flagged any actual sightings of species. Furthermore, several references from the Queen’s Species Richness | Page 20 University Biological Station, Charleston Lake Provincial Park, and Rideau Valley Conservation Authority did not provide a clear outline of whether actual or hypothetical data was used. Nontheless, the majority of species lists integrated (fourteen out of twenty-­‐three, or 60.9%) were known to utilize actual sightings, and only two sources were known to be hypothetical. Please refer to Appendix B for an overview of the metadata utilized in the compilation of the comprehensive species list. Finally, issues were seen in eliminating double entries. With multiple common names existing for various species as well as multiple Latin names, based on the particular taxonomic conventions used and the year the list was created, it was difficult to find all double entries. Species Richness | Page 21 4.3 RESULTS Please see Appendix A for the final version of the comprehensive species list compiled and submitted to the FABN board. Table 6 below provides an overview of the species richness figures that resulted from the species list. In total, 1,592 vertebrates and vascular plants were found in the biosphere. TABLE 6. Species Richness Results. SPECIES TYPE SPECIES RICHNESS Mammals 62 Herpetofauna 47 Birds 283 Vascular Plants 1,210 TOTAL 1,592 Results from the spatial assessment of significance show that the biosphere provides a habitat or migratory path to 42.8% of all vertebrate and vascular plant species in Ontario and 26.1% of vertebrate and vascular plant species in Canada, as shown in Table 7 below. The total number of species at risk in the biosphere, as defined by either an OMNR or COSEWIC designation, was also compared to the total number of species at risk in Ontario and Canada (see Section 5.2 for more detailed information on the methodology used in determining the number of species at risk in the biosphere). Findings show that 30.2% of species at risk in Ontario with an OMNR designation are found in the biosphere, and 9.3% of species at risk in Canada with a COSEWIC designation are found in the biosphere. Furthermore, 2.9% of all species in the biosphere are considered at risk. Species Richness | Page 22 TABLE 7. Spatial Assessment of Total Species Richness Significance. Note that the percentage of species at risk in Ontario found in the biosphere (30.2%) was calculated by comparing the number of species in the biosphere with an OMNR designation to the total number of species in Ontario with an OMNR designation. Similarly, the percentage of species at risk in Canada found in the biosphere (9.1%) was calculated by looking specifically at COSEWIC designations. Source: OMNR, 2012; COSEWIC, 2012). NUMBER % IN BIOSPHERE CALCUATION Species in Ontario 3,716 42.8% =1,592/3,716 Species in Canada 6,088 26.1% =1,592/6,088 46 2.9% =46/1,592 Species at risk in Ontario (OMNR designation) 152 30.2% =46/152 Species at risk in Canada (COSEWIC designation) 375 9.3% =35/375 Species at risk in the biosphere Results for the spatial assessment of significance at the species group level are found in Table 8 below. At a glance, herpetofauna and birds in the biosphere appear to be significant at both a provincial and national scale. Tables 9 and 10 further outline the spatial significance of species at risk at the species group level. Again, herpetofauna and birds are found to be of significance at both the provincial and national level, with 33.3% of herpetofauna at risk and 77.1% of birds at risk in Ontario found in the biosphere. Furthermore, 14.7% and 20.3% of herpetofauna and birds at risk in Canada, respectively, make the biosphere their home or utilize the corridor as a migratory path. TABLE 8. Spatial Assessment of Species Richness Significance for Each Species Group. BIOSPHERE ONTARIO NUMBER % Mammals 62 81 76.5% =62/81 Herpetofauna 47 53 69.8% =37/53 283 483 58.6% Vascular Plants 1,210 3,099 TOTAL 1,592 3,716 Birds CALCULATION CANADA NUMBER % CALCULATION 218 28.4% =62/218 95 38.9% =47/95 =283/483 664 42.6% =283/664 39.0% =1,210/3,099 5,111 23.7% =1,210/5,111 42.8% =1,592/3,716 6,088 26.1% =1,592/6,088 Species Richness | Page 23 TABLE 9. Spatial Assessment of Species Richness Significance for Each Species Group at Risk with an Ontario Designation. Figures and calculations are based on OMNR designations. BIOSPHERE NUMBER % CALCULATION 2 10 20.0% =2/10 Herpetofauna 10 30 33.3% =10/30 Birds 27 35 77.1% =27/35 7 77 9.1% =7/77 46 152 30.2% =46/152 Mammals Vascular Plants TOTAL ONTARIO TABLE 10. Spatial Assessment of Species Richness Significance for Each Species Group at Risk with a Federal Designation. Figures and calculations are based on COSWEIC designations. BIOSPHERE NUMBER % CALCULATION 2 40 5.0% =2/40 Herpetofauna 10 68 14.7% =10/68 Birds 16 79 20.3% =16/79 7 188 3.7% =7/188 35 375 9.3% =35/375 Mammals Vascular Plants TOTAL CANADA In analyzing the number of species flagged as only being referenced in a single source, results in Table 11 show that 28.1% of species included in the comprehensive species list should be analyzed for further investigation. Particularly, 16.3% of birds and 32.5% of vascular plants were only cited in a single source. Reference #7 (Reichl’s Species Checlist for the Thousand Islands Ecosystem) was found to be the source that repeatedly cited a species that was not referenced elsewhere. 76% of birds with a single source and 66% of plants with a single source were cited in Reference #7, which calls to question the validity of Reference #7’s dataset. Species Richness | Page 24 TABLE 11. Analysis of Species with a Single Reference. REF # NUMBER % CALCULATION Mammals 6 62 9.7% =6/62 1,2,7,11 Herpetofauna 3 47 6.4% =3/47 6.7 46 283 16.3% =46/283 1.2.3.4.7 Vascular Plants 393 1,210 32.5% =393/1,210 1,2,4,7 TOTAL 448 1,592 28.1% =448/1,592 Birds BIOSPHERE NUMBER WITH A SINGLE REFERENCE Species Richness | Page 25 4.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS The results highlight the importance of the biosphere as an area to be protected at both the provincial and national scale. Although the biosphere has been widely recognized as a unique crossroads of ecosystem types as well as a key migratory path for numerous animals, species richness figures can now be paired with such knowledge in order to strengthen the biosphere’s reputation as an area of ecological significance. Given the fact that 42.8% of all vertebrate and vascular plant species in Ontario and 26.1% of vertebrate and vascular plant species in Canada can be found in the biosphere, it is clear that the area is species-­‐rich. These figures can help the FABN to present quantitative data when advocating for increased conservation efforts to businesses, governments, and other stakeholders in the area. This complies with current principles to guide conservation and management, which regard the protection of locations with high species richness as “an efficient way to conserve overall diversity and sustain key ecological functions” (Fleishmen et al., 2006). In analyzing the breakdown of spatial significance for each of the species groups, results show a high percentage of bird and herpetofaunal species at risk found in the biosphere and a relatively lower percentage for mammals and plants at risk. Based on principles of species richness and conservation, a greater focus should be placed on the protection of herpetofauna and birds. This data supports knowledge of the biosphere’s significance as a migratory corridor for birds as well as a habitat, as provided by wetlands and forests. Herpetofauna are also frequently cited as ideal indicators for environmental monitoring due to their importance to ecological functioning and sensitivity to environmental change (Smith and Rissler, 2010), which helps to further justify an increased focus on this species group. Previous literature also shows that species richness data is most effective in prioritizing conservation efforts when used in conjunction with other metrics such as species composition, endemism, functional significance and severity of threats (Fleishmen et al., 2006). As such, the species richness results should be used alongside the species at risk distribution results of this report as well as other data in order to maximize the impact of conservation efforts. It is further recommended that a formal monitoring program be implemented in order to build upon the baseline of information provided in this study. While biodiversity in the region is generally well protected, it is crucial to monitor into the future in order to ensure species are not threatened at any point due to newly arising externalities. Further discussion on the implementation of such a program can be found in Section 8.0. Closer analysis of species flagged for further investigation in terms of extirpation shows that Reference #7 is responsible for the majority of species with a single reference. Although representatives of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park referred to this list as the most comprehensive source for species in the area, Species Richness | Page 26 the validity of the information should be reassessed. Furthermore, it can be further analyzed whether a different set of naming conventions were used. Perhaps many of the species in Reference #7 already exist in the comprehensive species list, but under a different common name or Latin name. Species Richness | Page 27 5.0 SPECIES AT RISK DISTRIBUTION 5.1 RATIONALE TABLE 12. Species at risk Distribution Indicators and Rationale INDICATOR PSR RATIONALE Number of species at risk and designations S Lack of existing understanding. Information needed for completion pulled from comprehensive species list. Species at risk distribution S Displays where at least one species at risk is known to be located. In order for future recommendations in conservation efforts to be complete, an accurate baseline from which suggestions can be made must first be established. The analysis of species at risk makes significant contributions to the understanding of the current state of biodiversity in the region. By updating the data on the numbers of species at risk present within the biosphere, the health of the FAB can be assessed. It will help to provide a reference point for current and future losses of biodiversity. The more species at risk present, the greater the concern is for the sustainability of biodiversity. In addition, by looking at the specific designations (Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern), the severity of the situation can further be examined. If all species at risk hold the title of Endangered, this is of greater urgency and concern than if the majority of species at risk are listed as being of Special Concern. The designation of each species at risk can assist in the prioritization of conservation efforts. Furthermore, by examining the distribution of species at risk, we are able to visually see areas that appear to be more concentrated with species, and therefore, more significant. This can be used to draw conclusions about important habitat types, forest types, soil types, etc. to protect. In summary, knowing how many species at risk exist within the FAB and what their designations are help those with authority know where to direct their efforts. The distribution map of the species at risk is moreover a useful visual tool to show where the species are located throughout the FAB. In Section 6.0, map overlays use this information for further analysis. Nevertheless, a baseline understanding of the area can still be obtained through simple observation of the distribution of the species at risk within the FAB. An understanding of the confirmed locations where species at risk have been found should influence future conservation efforts and land use planning. Species at Risk Distribution | Page 28 5.2 METHODS Once completed, the comprehensive species list provided a basis to determine which Species at Risk were found in the FAB. Data in the comprehensive species list was cross-­‐referenced with the entire Species at Risk list in Ontario from the OMNR website in order to produce a list of Species at Risk and their designations at the provincial level. Following this, the lists were cross-­‐referenced with a species list from Parks Canada outlining COSEWIC designations in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park, and then cross-­‐referenced again with data from the NHIC website. Finally, the list was narrowed down to include only the species types within the scope of this project, meaning that aquatic species, invertebrates, and non-­‐vascular plants were eliminated from the list. This resulted in a list of 46 species at risk, which were then cross-­‐referenced once more with the COSEWIC website to determine the federal designations. A presence and absence distribution map of 23 species at risk in the biosphere was created using ArcGIS mapping software. Longitude and latitude data for only 23 of the 46 species was available from the NHIC with access through the Queen’s Library database. Information from the NHIC records outlines the presence or absence of a species for each square kilometre using a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 1-­‐km type grid. In order to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the grid of 1-­‐km squares, the scope of the project was narrowed down to the 23 species that had NHIC GIS data available. This was seen as a setback to the success of our project, however, and the mapping of all 46 species at risk is recommended in Section 8.0. Species at Risk Distribution | Page 29 5.2.1 Limitations The original intention of this report was to create a Species at Risk hotspots map by overlaying the distribution maps of the 23 Species at Risk on one another, with darker 1-­‐km squares indicating that more species are present in the square. As such, clusters of dark squares could be designated as hotspots. However, upon comparing the information from the individual species distribution maps with data from the comprehensive species list, an error in the NHIC dataset was discovered. When mapping the 23 distribution maps one atop another, it became clear that the dataset only allowed for a single Species at Risk to be present within each 1-­‐km square. There was no overlap of two or more species in any particular square, which did not correspond with data in the comprehensive species list as well as basic knowledge of the distribution of ecosystems and species. As an example, Table 13 highlights the various references and locations that the Blanding’s Turtle was cited. Figure 4 provides a sample of the mapping distribution that resulted when utilizing the NHIC GIS dataset. According to the map, the Blanding’s Turtle is supposedly located in a single 1-­‐km square, which is clearly not the case, as it has been seen at both provincial parsk and various conservation areas. A representative from Queen’s Library contacted the NHIC on our behalf to resolve the error. However, given the tight timeline, the objective of this part of the project shifted slightly such that the new objective was to create a single distribution map that detailed the presence or absence of any of the 23 species, without illustrating hotspots. TABLE 13. Blanding’s Turtle Sightings in Comprehensive Species List. SIGHTINGS Queen’s University Biological Station Gould Lake, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority National Heritage Information Centre Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas Oliver Reichl Species Checklist of the Thousand Islands Charleston Lake Provincial Park Foley Mountain Conservation Area Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Species at Risk Distribution | Page 30 FIGURE 4. Distribution Map of Blanding’s Turtle. Species at Risk Distribution | Page 31 5.3 RESULTS The completed list of species at risk shows that there are 46 different species in the biosphere that have an OMNR provincial designation with a subset of 34 also having a COSEWIC national designation. Each of the species at risk along with their designations can be seen in Table 14. TABLE 14. Species at Risk. COMMON NAME Henslow's Sparrow LATIN NAME Ammodramus henslowii TYPE Bird COSEWIC STATUS Endangered Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Bird ND Endangered Short-­‐Eared Owl Asio flammeus Bird Special Concern Special Concern Whip-­‐poor-­‐will Caprimulgus vociferus Bird ND Threatened Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Bird ND Threatened Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Bird Endangered Endangered Black Tern Childonias niger Bird ND Special Concern Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Bird ND Special Concern Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Bird Endangered Endangered Contopus cooperi Bird ND Special Concern OMNR STATUS Endangered Olive-­‐Sided Flycatcher Coturnicops Yellow Rail noveboracensis Bird Special Concern Special Concern Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Bird Special Concern Special Concern Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bird ND Threatened Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Bird Endangered Endangered Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrine antum Bird Threatened Threatened Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird ND Special Concern Chat Icteria virens Bird Special Concern Special Concern Eastern Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus Shrike migrans Bird Endangered Endangered Least Bittern Lxobrychus exilis Bird Threatened Threatened Yellow Breasted Species at Risk Distribution | Page 32 Red Headed Melanerpes Woodpecker crythrocephalus Bird Special Concern Special Concern Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Bird Special Concern Special Concern Warbler Protonotaria citrea Bird Endangered Endangered King Rail Rallus elegans Bird Endangered Endangered Seiurus motacilla Bird ND Special Concern Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Bird Threatened Special Concern Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Bird ND Special Concern Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Bird Not at Risk Special Concern Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Herpetofauna Special Concern Special Concern Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Herpetofauna Endangered Endangered Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Herpetofauna Threatened Threatened Herpetofauna Special Concern Special Concern Prothonotary Louisiana Waterthrush Golden-­‐ Winged Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica Eastern Hog-­‐nosed Snake Heterodon platirhinos Herpetofauna Threatened Threatened Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis trangulum Herpetofauna Special Concern Special Concern Gray Ratsnake Pantherophis spiloides Herpetofauna Threatened Threatened Five-­‐ Lined Skink Plestiodon fasciatus Herpetofauna Special Concern Special Concern Stinkpot Turtle Sternotherus odoratus Herpetofauna Threatened Threatened Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus Herpetofauna Special Concern Special Concern Easter Cougar Puma concolor Mammal Data Deficient Endangered Northern Urocyon Common Grey Fox cinereoargenteus Mammal Threatened Threatened Butternut Juglans cinerea Plant Endangered Endangered American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius Plant Endangered Endangered Phegopteris Broad Beech Fern hexagonoptera Plant Special Concern Special Concern Eastern Prairie Platanthera leucophaea Plant Endangered Endangered Species at Risk Distribution | Page 33 Fringed Orchid Ogden's Pondweed Potamogeton ogdenii Plant Endangered Endangered Deerberry Vaccinium stamineum Plant Threatened Threatened Woodsia obtusa Plant Endangered Endangered Blunt-­‐Lobed Woodsia The final distribution map of all 23 species at risk is seen in Figure 5. The map indicates the presence of at least one of the 23 species at risk within each 1-­‐km square. The map highlights how the distribution of species at risk in the biosphere is centralized into two large groups with a noticeable gap between them. Another component of this analysis worth noting is that species at risk are present in the Thousand Islands region in the St. Lawrence River and the high activity in this area should therefore be considered. FIGURE 5. Species at Risk Distribution Map. Species at Risk Distribution | Page 34 5.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS Table 14 proves useful in providing a baseline understanding of species at risk within the biosphere. In analyzing the table further, simple calculations show that 38.2% of species at risk with a COSEWIC designation are Endangered, 26.5% are Threatened and 35.3% are of Special Concern. Referring back to Table 7 in Section 4.3, it was found that 9.3% of species at risk in Canada are located in the biosphere. While this is not a large percentage of the total pool of species at risk in Canada, the data can now be paired with knowledge that the majority of species in the biosphere are Endangered, thus illustrating the significance of the biosphere in terms of conservation priorities at the national level. Similarly, at the provincial level, 32.6% are Endangered, 23.9% are Threatened and 43.5% are of Special Concern. Table 7 in Section 4.3 shows that 30.2% of species at risk in Ontario with an OMNR designation are found in the FAB. Thus, of this 30.2%, the majority is of Special Concern. However, that is not to say that the FAB is not significant at the provincial level given this finding. Sound conservation practices promote the principle of preventing species from entering Threatened or Endangered status in the first place (Scott et al., 1987). Overall, these figures provide a baseline for which the FABN can set goals to reduce the number of species with Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern status and monitor progress of the indicators over time, potentially as part of a broader strategic environmental assessment plan (Feest, 2006; Treweek et al., 2005). As part of the biodiversity monitoring program, the FABN can also keep track of the total number of species at risk federally and provincially each year. This would be an extremely useful strategy to monitor conservation efforts yet very simple to implement, as designations are already kept track of by governmental organizations and must simply be compiled (refer to Section 8.0). The species at risk distribution map (Figure 5) illustrates a noticeable gap between two large areas of species at risk. Further analysis is required in order to determine whether this gap does in fact exist once NHIC data has been corrected and updated to include the remaining 23 species at risk. It may be the case that this empty corridor will fill in if the other 23 species are mapped, as recommended in Section 8.0. If further research shows that there is an empty corridor, then additional analysis should be undertaken to detmerine the reason for this interesting distribution pattern. However, given the limitations in the dataset provided by the NHIC, it is difficult to draw broad conclusions on the distribution map alone. For the purposes of this report, the distribution map proves most useful when paired with various overlays, as further discussed in Section 6.0 and Section 7.0. Species at Risk Distribution | Page 35 6.0 PRESSURES ON SPECIES AT RISK 6.1 RATIONALE TABLE 15. Pressures on Species at Risk Indicators and Rationale. INDICATOR PSR RATIONALE Population density P Observe where greatest pressure lies, which will help justify current conservation efforts and direct future efforts. Land use P Identify which land uses are placing the greatest pressure on species. This will help justify current conservation efforts and direct future efforts. Roads P Observe areas of greatest concern and determine effect road density is placing on biodiversity. Results will enable planning of conservation efforts. Wetlands P Identify areas of particular interest that support an array of species in order to recognize areas that may benefit from protection. The rationale behind choosing to overlay the species distribution maps with various indicators such as population, land use, roads, and wetlands was to visually analyze any possible correlations between species abundance and pressures present. For instance, this allows for an analysis of whether wetlands and protected areas support a greater diversity of species. As well, it will allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the impact of road density and population density on species distribution and abundance. These pressures could potentially be placing significant stress on the populations of certain species. Thus, it is vital that they be monitored in order to guarantee the sustainability of biodiversity in the FAB. Projects that monitor biodiversity are said to benefit from long-­‐term ecological research and a commitment to test hypotheses relevant to biodiversity conservation (Noss, 1990). An effective way to begin this is to start with mapping out where species are known to be found, and then overlaying this with data on various stressors in order to identify high-­‐risk areas of biological significance. The methodology of this report follows this strategy. For many years it has been stated that the size and growth of human population are key threats to biodiversity, and this shows no indication of stopping any time soon (McKee et al., 2004). McKee et al. (2004) found that the number of threatened species is expected to increase by 7% by 2020 solely as a result of human population growth. Therefore, it is of great use to overlay population density with species abundance in order Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 36 to identify areas that may be of particular concern for biodiversity loss. These areas can then be targeted with monitoring programs or special protection. Land use is also one of the best indicators of biodiversity. Changes in land use potentially affect the ability of ecosystems to sustain food production, maintain freshwater and forest resources, regulate climate and air quality, and ameliorate infectious disease (Foley et al. 2005). Thus, land use is not only a local concern, but also a global issue. Land cover change is established as the single most important variable of global change affecting ecological systems (Facucci et al. 2007; Foody, 2002). It affects biogeochemical cycling (and hence climate change), the erosion of soils (and hence sustainable land use) and this overlay is therefore of utmost importance in assessing the state of biodiversity and correlations that exist between land use and the abundance of species in order to direct future conservation efforts (Foody, 2002). Noss (1990) stated that human land-­‐use indicators, such as road density, are often the most critical variables for tracking the status of biodiversity. Increased road building is known to have negative effects on native biodiversity; however, better management can help slow this impact (Noss, 1999). By assessing road density, we are identifying structural changes that have led to unacceptable conditions. Through this information, objectives can be formulated which will aim to slow or reverse these changes and monitoring can be implemented in order to track this progress. Many species are limited by their ability to move from patch to patch, or face high mortality risk in attempting to do so. Roads often act as barriers and constrain species to certain areas. Wetlands are incredibly complex ecosystems with varying habitats, and the variety of organisms that have adapted to live in these habitats are numerous. Thus, it is interesting to look at the distribution of wetlands across the FAB, and if the occurrence of wetlands was very low, this could act as a pressure on species. On the contrary, a high abundance of wetlands could indicate a range of healthy habitat that may correlate with high biodiversity. Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 37 6.2 METHODS Maps of roads distribution, land use, municipal boundaries and land cover were available through the Scholars’ GeoPortal and accessed through Queen’s Library Mapping Services. Each of the overlays was found on the GeoPortal then exported as .shp files into ArcGIS. The map overlays were then placed on top of the compiled species at risk distribution map seen in Figure 5 of Section 5.3 in ArcGIS. 6.2.1 Limitations The map overlays examine a limited number of factors that can impact biodiversity. They are intended to serve as a baseline of information, but there are several overlays that could have been examined. Threats to biodiversity are not limited to what was chosen as an overlay. Furthermore, if there appears to be a correlation between low biodiversity and high population density, for example, it cannot be assumed that population density is the only reason for low species abundance. Biodiversity is a highly complex subject matter and is influenced by a myriad of intertwined factors that can never be entirely understood all at once, which must be kept in mind. Population data has only been obtained for larger towns and the FAB as a whole. Therefore, direct correlations and effects cannot be studied with certainty. The population was obtained for certain townships which extend beyond the FAB boundary, thus leaving room for error in the analysis. Additionally, population data only accounts for permanent residents, whereas there is a high number of seasonal residents and cottagers as well as tourists who leave their footprint on the FAB environment. As for land use, the overlay is limited to the southern half of the FAB and larger towns such as Brockville and Gananoque. A limitation that exists with the road overlay is that we have only analyzed the presence or absence of roads and therefore can only draw correlations with fragmentation. We do not know the frequency of traffic, which would have an impact on roadkills. Finally, for wetlands we are unaware of the species diversity thriving within them. Certain wetlands are larger and more intact than others, but cannot be recommended for conservation based on species diversity or abundance. Additionally, it is difficult to determine whether there are no species at risk present in a certain area because there is no habitat degradation or because the areas are so poor that the species have already been extirpated from that area. Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 38 6.3 RESULTS Using 2011 Census Data from Statistics Canada, populations of larger cities and townships were gathered. The results were as follows: TABLE 16. Population Figures for Larger Cities and Townships in the Bisophere. Source: Statistics Canada, 2011. CITY OR TOWNSHIP Brockville POPULATION 21,870 Gananoque 5,194 Leeds and Thousand Islands (Township) 9,277 Athens (Township) 3,118 South Frontenac (Township) 18,113 Rideau Lakes (Township) 10,207 Elizabethtown-­‐Kitley (Township) TOTAL 9,724 77,503 Certain townships, in particular Rideau Lakes Township and Elizabethtown-­‐Kitley Township, extend out beyond the FAB. Therefore, the population of these areas in the FAB would be smaller, and the total population is not quite 77,503. However, this is a close estimate and is nevertheless representative of the population within the FAB. The city of Brockville has the largest population, and does not support any species at risk. The largest township is that of South Frontenac, which is located to the west of the FAB. In this area, there is a large cluster and abundance of species at risk. There are also numerous species at risk within the Leeds and Thousand Islands Township. However, the total population of the FAB is low for the size of the area that it encompasses (approximately 2,700km2) (FABR, 2012). The land use overlay extended mid-­‐way into the arch, focusing mainly on the town of Gananoque and the city of Brockville. These towns predominantly have commercial and resource/industrial coverage, as well as a large covering of residential area, as shown in Figure 6. There are also smaller residential areas dispersed throughout the FAB. However, the most significant land use appears to be open area and parks and recreation. Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 39 FIGURE 5. Species at risk Distribution Map with Land Use Overlay. Along the South portion of the FAB that follows Lake Ontario, there are quite a few major roads as well as a dense pocket of minor roads that coincide with the distribution of species at risk, as illustrated in Figure 7. Roads are present throughout the FAB, and pose direct concern to the species at risk that are impacted by them. Roads inevitably pass through much of the area where species at risk reside. However, it is beneficial that road density within the provincial and national parks is significantly reduced. FIGURE 6. Species at risk Distribution Map with Major Roads Overlay Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 40 FIGURE 7. Species at risk Distribution Map with Minor Roads Overlay As can be seen from the wetlands map overlay in Figure 9, wetlands are abundant within the FAB. Species at risk are found both in areas that are covered in wetlands, as well as in areas that aren’t. Nevertheless, wetlands are important habitat for mammals, herpetofauna, birds, and plants alike. FIGURE 8. Species at risk Distribution Map with Wetlands Overlay. Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 41 6.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS Due to the small size of the towns within the FAB, population does not place an immediate threat to its biodiversity. Nevertheless, it is crucial that the population residing within the FAB place as little impact as possible on the species and that open areas be maintained. Correlations between land use and species at risk distribution can be made seeing as species at risk are not found in the Brockville area, likely because the town is too developed to support the needs of species at risk. It is presumed that Brockville does not have suitable habitat for these species. However, species at risk do reside within the town of Gananoque, as well as some of the smaller towns throughout the FAB. Therefore, it is important that these towns, such as Sydenham, Harrowsmith, and Verona, maintain their open areas and parks in order to ensure the protection of species at risk in their area. Development must be proceeded with carefully and with consideration of the biodiversity that could potentially be affected by land use change. For planning purposes, larger town developments should not occur in proximity to protected areas such as Frontenac Provincial Park and Charleston Lake Provincial Park. Since much of the land use within the FAB is parks and recreation or open area, species at risk habitat is largely preserved. There is not significant commercial or industrial land use in the area, which is beneficial to species at risk and biodiversity as a whole. The presence of roads (both major and minor) poses concern to species living within the FAB not only through fragmentation, but also through habitat destruction. One of the major roads along the South portion of the FAB is the Thousand Islands Parkway, which likely draws traffic from tourists. Minor roads are also quite dense on the western boundary of the FAB where species at risk reside. Several issues arise that are associated with the presence of roads. Roads interrupt the horizontal ecological flows and alter landscape spatial pattern, which inhibits important interior species. Roadsides do not generally support rare species; they are most frequently lined with plants, in particular invasive species that spread easily from vehicle air turbulence (Forman and Alexander, 1998). Roads present a concern for mammals and predatory species that move along roads in search of roadkill. Additionally, roads by wetlands have the highest roadkill rates, and therefore, this is something to consider since the FAB is very rich in wetlands (as we will see in the next section) (Forman and Alexander, 1998). Amphibians and reptiles are most susceptible to two-­‐lane roads with low to moderate traffic, whereas large to medium-­‐sized mammals are most susceptible to two-­‐ lane high speed roads, and birds and small mammals are most vulnerable near wider, high speed highways (Forman and Alexander, 1998). Effects such as noise and lighting also play a factor in species distribution near roads. Many species experience hearing loss, increased stress hormone levels, altered behaviors, interference with communication Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 42 during breeding, differential sensitivity to different frequencies, and toxic effects on food supply near roads, explaining their avoidance (Forman and Alexander, 1998). However, roads also have been noted as being navigational cues for migrating birds. Since fauna show a reduced probability of crossing roads, they can be described as a barrier. This barrier effect creates metapopulations as it subdivides populations and leads to reduced genetic heterozygosity (Forman and Alexander, 1998). Finally, there is also the impact of water runoff, sediment, and chemical transport associated with roads. All of the above issues may play a role in the dispersion of species within the FAB, yet road traffic is a much smaller concern in the FAB than in denser urban areas. Since water is so readily available within wetlands, nutrients can be transported easily and waste products can be removed. The frequent association between plant roots and microscopic organisms able to use nitrogen allow wetland plants to grow rapidly and produce large quantities of organic matter (Halls, 1997). The significant productivity of wetland plants along with vegetation distribution patterns and water level fluctuations create continuously changing wetland habitats throughout the year to aquatic and terrestrial animals. Many species depend on wetlands for survival, and therefore, wetlands are crucially important to the sustainability of the FAB. Mammals, herpetofauna, birds and plants all thrive in wetlands. They are important to protect due to their location and because resources within them may be useful for exploitation. Current predictions indicate that climate change will lower water levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, thereby reducing the size and distribution of wetlands (Cozzi et al. 2010). Many remaining wetlands are significantly degraded by siltation, which renders habitats less suitable for other species (Cozzi et al. 2010). Three areas have been circled on the map overlay which indicate areas that would be suggested as being of potential consideration for protection should more protection be desired. These areas have species at risk residing within them, and are far away from other protected areas. They are larger and more intact and it would be of interest to study these areas more in depth. Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 43 FIGURE 9. Potential Areas for Increased Conservation Efforts. Pressures on Species at Risk | Page 44 7.0 MEASURES TO PROTECT SPECIES AT RISK 7.1 RATIONALE TABLE 17. Measures to Protect Species at risk Indicators and Rationale. INDICATOR PSR RATIONALE Official Plans of Municipalities R Anthropogenic alteration of the environment can reduce habitat availability. Alternatively, plans may include zoning or policies that protect Species at risk. Important for identifying future opportunities. Strategic Plans of Watersheds R The scale, priorities, and years covered in strategic plans can be evaluated to determine whether sensitive species & habitats are adequately protected by their conservation authorities (organized by watershed). Major Protected Lands R Correlation (or lack thereof) between locations of 23 Species at risk and protected areas indicate how successfully protected areas were planned and identifies future opportunities. Since the FAB combines human use and wildlife conservation, it is key to examine human plans and protections that may influence ecological integrity. Each of the above indicators provides information on how humans plan to alter the environment into the future, whether it is to the benefit of humans or wildlife, which is integral to identifying gaps in protection and areas in need of improvement. As established in Section 2.0, biodiversity is crucial to the overall sustainability of the FAB region, and if the indicators listed above are not found to adequately protect biodiversity into the future, then the FAB will be failing to meet its mandate. Municipal plans, or official plans, are documents created by municipalities of any tier to regulate land uses within their jurisdiction in order to reach the municipality’s goals (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2010). They usually contain policies determining what sort of development can occur and where, providing a vision into the future on how land will change at the hands of humans. Provisions explicitly regarding species at risk affirm sustainability of the FAB in terms of biodiversity, while a lack of provisions can alert the FAB on where protection efforts need to be focused moving forward. A strategic plan for a watershed is a document created by a conservation authority to guide future projects and establish priorities (Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, 2001). Conservation authorities in Ontario are organized by tertiary watershed boundaries, four of which lie within the FAB’s boundaries (Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, 2001; Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve, 2010). These can be seen Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 45 in Figure 11 below. Each of these has a corresponding conservation authority, except for the Upper St. Lawrence-­‐Thousand Islands watershed, which was added to the jurisdiction of the Cataraqui watershed and is also managed by a land trust. Each of these conservation authorities has different priorities that affect biodiversity now and into the future. Thus, it is important to examine and compare these to see how species will be affected. FIGURE 10. Tertiary Watersheds within the Biosphere. Source: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve, 2010. Major protected lands are defined in this report as provincial or national parks. One of the main goals of both types of parks is protection of the natural environment – this means biodiversity is protected from significant human influence and habitat destruction in these areas (Parks Canada, 2008; Ontario Parks, 2005). Overlaying these areas on the 23 available species at risk maps shows how well parks are achieving their goal of Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 46 protection, assuming that if the most sensitive species can survive in these areas, then less at-­‐risk species can as well. The indicators in this section are mainly response-­‐type indicators, containing provisions to guard against previously identified threats to biodiversity and sustainability. However, they can also occasionally act as pressures; for example, if development is planned in an ecologically sensitive area in a municipality. All three of the indicators are simple to measure, with protected lands available as a map overlay, and municipal and watershed plans available online and laid out so that all who are interested can access and understand them. It is easy to differentiate between future anthropogenic and natural pressures with these indicators, as all matters discussed within are either regarding plans for development or for nature protection (one or the other). Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 47 7.2 METHODS Data for these indicators was obtained through downloads of official plans from the websites of municipalities within the Arch, downloads of strategic plans from the websites of conservation authorities within the Arch, and access to an ArcGIS shape file of the major protected areas within the FAB from the Ministry of Natural Resources, found through the Scholars’ GeoPortal with access gained through Queen’s University. Municipalities examined were narrowed to Upper Tier and Single Tier. An Upper-­‐Tier municipality encompasses a number of Lower-­‐Tier municipalities and coordinates their efforts, while Lower-­‐Tier municipalities are tasked with local duties like garbage collection (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2011). Single-­‐Tier municipalities are usually larger-­‐sized cities that operate independently as their own municipality (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2011). By examining the Official Plans of Upper-­‐Tier and Single-­‐Tier municipalities, we can obtain an idea of the goals and priorities of all areas of the Arch, while narrowing in more on Single-­‐Tier highly populated areas, which would probably have the highest impact on wildlife. Official Plans were combed through to find certain pieces information, as listed in Table 18 in the following section. The headings on Table 18 were chosen with input from Graham Whitelaw, professor at Queen’s University, with the idea that they are elements often found in Official Plans that affect biodiversity the most. Each Official Plan also contained some data relevant to biodiversity that would not fit under a heading of Table 18 – in this case, the information is discussed in Section 7.3 or 7.4 below. For the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, no Official Plan was available, so the municipality’s Sustainability Plan was examined in its place; however, this was noted as a weakness. Strategic Plans of watersheds were similarly sifted through for information corresponding to Table 19 below. Since conservation authorities are in charge of each watershed, and the point of a conservation authority is already to conserve and protect wildlife, it was difficult to determine table headings that could differentiate between a strong and weak Plan. In conjunction with Graham Whitelaw’s recommendations, the table headings below were used to evaluate and compare the Strategic Plans. The Upper St. Lawrence-­‐
Thousand Islands watershed is a unique case that is cared for by both the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and the Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust. This means that the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority’s Strategic Plan applies to the region, but since the Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust also has conservation interests in the area, we have decided to include it in this evaluation. The general information found on their website was used in place of a Strategic Plan to fill out the table criteria. Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 48 The procedure for the Protected Lands indicator mirrors the methodology to map the overlays outlined in Section 6.2. The shape file of the major protected areas was mapped onto the comprehensive species at risk distribution map utilizing ArcGIS software. This combined map was then examined to determine whether locations of species at risk correspond with protected lands. The links between species at risk and protected areas are further discussed in Section 7.4. 7.2.1 Limitations Originally, our group had planned to examine Action Plans for species at risk found in the Arch in addition to the three indicators identified above in Section 7.1. This would have been a valuable source when combined with the 23 individual species at risk distribution map as it could have pinpointed areas where action is lacking or where adequate action had been taken. However, a few difficulties prevented the use of Action Plans as an indicator. Firstly, the problems with the species distribution maps identified in Section 5.2 invalidated these maps, making them useful to this project only when all 23 species were viewed on one map. This meant that the locations of individual species at risk could not be reliably determined. Secondly, an examination of the Species at Risk Public Registry revealed that region-­‐specific Action Plans are not available for species. The Acadian Flycatcher’s page may be used as an example – it is available at http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=19. The page only tells us that one Action Plan has been created for the Acadian Flycatcher but does not provide a link to it. It also discusses recovery progress, but with no specific regional examples. Thus, it was decided not to include Action Plans as an indicator. In the Section 8.0, these difficulties are further discussed. There also was not an Official Plan available for every municipality examined. This meant that the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville could not be examined and evaluated in the same way as the other three municipalities that each had Official Plans. It is possible that Lower-­‐Tier municipalities within the Unified Counties of Leeds and Grenville have strong policies and zoning to protect biodiversity, but without a unifying document from their Upper-­‐Tier municipality, there is both a lack of accessibility and of coordination amongst the Lower-­‐Tier municipalities. A similar limitation is seen with the analysis of watersheds, as the Upper St Lawrence – Thousand Islands watershed does not have its own corresponding conservation authority and thus also does not have a Strategic Plan specific to its watershed. This raises a similar problem to the previous point – that all watersheds cannot be compared on the same basis. The Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust seems to have similar goals and roles to the conservation authorities, and even mentions a Business Plan at one point on their Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 49 website, but provides no link to it. Thus, the Land Trust had to be evaluated solely based on the vision, mission, goals, and individual land holding descriptions on their website, which is very different from a Strategic Plan. The boundaries of each conservation authority also do not correspond precisely with the boundaries of the tertiary watersheds in Figure 11 above, and a justification for this could not be found. The shape file of protected lands downloaded from the Scholars’ GeoPortal database only contained provincial and national parks. There are many other kinds of protected lands within the FAB, including conservation areas and sanctuaries that would have increased the area of protected land. The FAB has a map file containing all of the protected lands within the FAB that can be mapped using ArcGIS; unfortunately, by the time our group learned of this, it was late in the project and there was not enough time to retrieve this file and add it to our work. This is an easy task that either a future group or someone from the FAB could complete. Ideally, Official Plans from municipalities and Strategic Plans from conservation authorities would have been available in a map overlay form. This would have given the data contained within these a more direct connection to the research we completed in this project – specifically to the distribution map of the 23 species at risk. This would have shown where land designations and buffer zones are in direct relation to the species at risk, which would have allowed for more conclusions to be drawn and recommendations to be made. In their current form, as written documents without precise geographical locations attached to regulations, the only way to evaluate Official and Strategic plans is to pull out elements related to biodiversity and compare these to one another, which is what we have done in this report. Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 50 7.3 RESULTS Municipal Plan Analysis TABLE 18. An Overview of the Official Plans of Upper and Single Tier Municipalities. MUNICIPALITY INVENTORY OF NATURAL AREAS DESIGNATION & ZONING POLICIES BUFFER ZONES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIRED? County of Frontenac (Upper Tier) Unknown In progress Unknown In progress Unknown United Counties of Leeds and Grenville (Upper Tier) Planned ‘Natural Within Environment individual Database’ for each townships lower tier municipality No No Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes – Environmental Impact Assessment Yes Yes Yes Yes – Environmental Impact Study, including Ecological Site Assessment Town of Gananoque Yes, of butternut (Single Tier within trees Leeds & Grenville) City of Brockville (Single Tier within Leeds & Grenville) Yes, of trees The County of Frontenac has no existing Official Plan, but is in the process of creating one that is expected to be ready to implement by September 2013. Data was gathered from a basis document that provides the guiding values and priorities the Plan will be formed around. This is the first document of its kind for the County of Frontenac. Feedback for the Plan is being gathered from a wide variety of stakeholders including citizens, the FAB, and conservation authorities. The Integrated Sustainability Plan section of the basis document has a section devoted to protection of natural areas including monitoring, which is particularly relevant to biodiversity. As previously mentioned, the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville have no Official Plan available, so their Integrated Community Sustainability Plan was examined instead. This contains a mention of land designations and zoning, but not specifically to protect areas important to wildlife. It mentions environmental health a number of times as a priority but does not clearly define this term in regards to biodiversity. The Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 51 Sustainability Plan is further broken down into priorities for each Lower-­‐Tier municipality within, and wildlife is explicitly mentioned in the priorities in one out of twelve of these. The Gananoque Official Plan checks out for all of the table headings. There is a specific requirement for inventory of butternut trees – if they are present on a property, a conservation authority must consult with the municipality before development can occur. Butternut trees are highlighted because they are particularly rare, classified as endangered in both Ontario and Canada (refer to Table 14). There is also no development permitted on Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species unless an environmental impact assessment is conducted first and deems it safe. The document contains a detailed description of the environmental impact assessment process, but does not mention the role of conservation authorities in them. Finally, buffers are mentioned a few times throughout the Plan, but no explicit regulations are included on how their size or location will be determined. The Brockville Official Plan is quite similar to that of Gananoque. It checks out for all table headings, describes the same regulations for development on Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species plus regulations for buffer zones around these, and similarly requires an inventory of butternut trees before development can occur. Buffer zones in ecologically significant areas (but not adjacent to Significant Habitats) are to be determined in cooperation with a conservation authority. Environmental Impact Assessments are similarly conducted in cooperation with the conservation authority. The Plan also explicitly states that intensification of pre-­‐existing residential areas will always occur where possible rather than the creation of new residential areas and corresponding destruction of wildlife habitat. Watershed Plan Analysis TABLE 19. An Overview of the Strategic Plans of Conservation Authorities. WATERSHED CONSERVATION YEARS FINEST SCALE AUTHORITY COVERED MENTIONED SPECIES AT RISK MENTIONED? Cataraqui Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority 2000-­‐2020 Sub-­‐watersheds No Napanee Quinte Conservation 2010-­‐2020 Entire watershed No Rideau Rideau Valley Conservation 2005-­‐? Authority Individual tributaries Yes Upper St Lawrence – Thousand Islands None -­‐ Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust Individual conservation lands Yes N/A Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 52 All three conservation areas use the ecosystem approach to conservation, meaning ecosystems are considered and protected as holistic interdependent entities rather than focusing conservation efforts on isolated individual species (McAfee & Malouin, 2008). This approach involves a focus on the underlying processes that ensure ecosystem health, such as water quality and soil pH, and takes human influence into consideration (McAfee & Malouin, 2008). It also implies the use of adaptive management, meaning that strategies involve constant monitoring and adjusting of priorities or regulations according to feedback provided from said monitoring (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority & Robinson Consultants Inc., 2005). The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction covers the largest area in the FAB. 10 sub-­‐
watersheds within its jurisdiction are mentioned, with a goal of completing a basin study on each and creating individualized management plans based on these. Another goal discussed is to make management plans, master plans, or user policies for each of their conservation lands, which would include specialized goals most likely relevant to species at risk in each. Wetlands are specifically mentioned as a conservation focus, which also generally tend to be biodiversity hotspots. Cooperation between all stakeholders and the Authority is identified as crucial to a successfully executed Plan. Quinte Conservation manages the small part of the Napanee watershed that crosses into the FAB on the western edge. Their Strategic Plan is quite short and, aside from using the ecosystem approach, only explicitly involves wildlife in one priority: to “collaborate in ecosystem monitoring, research and reporting”. They too emphasize the importance of community education and stakeholder involvement to a successful Strategy. Whereas the previous two Strategic Plans declared start and end dates to their plans, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority does not state a year that their plan expires. This Strategic Plan narrows its scope to the Lower Rideau Watershed, which is assessed to be in moderately good condition partly due to high biodiversity including species at risk. One of the threats mentioned is invasive species, which is also relevant to biodiversity. The Plan itself is quite detailed, containing not only goals but also concrete ways to go about achieving them – for example, a three-­‐tier working group structure is suggested to spearhead each focal area. Environmental monitoring and reporting are cited as key to achieving goals. The Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust manages conservation lands in the Upper St. Lawrence-­‐
Thousand Islands Watershed, in addition to the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. They are not a conservation authority, though, and as such do not have a Strategic Plan, as explained in Section 7.2.1. They promote conservation through purchasing or accepting donations of land and managing these, and through encouraging private landowners to engage with conservation on their own properties. Descriptions of their properties contain links to biodiversity through the mention of focal species that reside in each. Two tasks of Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 53 the Land Trust also coincide with biodiversity: “carrying out evaluations to determine landscape conservation priorities” and “advocating protection priorities to government”. The Land Trust also has close ties to the FAB as it was a main advocate in getting the area established as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Protected Lands Analysis Figure 12 below shows the species at risk distribution map overlain with major protected areas in the FAB. It can be seen that species at risk are found throughout each of the three conservation areas in the FAB, with a corridor down the centre where none of the 23 species at risk available for mapping were sighted. FIGURE 11. Species at Risk Distribution Map with Major Protected Areas Overlay. From left to right, the parks are Frontenac Provincial Park, Charleston Lake Provincial Park, and St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 54 7.4 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS Municipal Plans The two Single-­‐Tier municipalities examined, Brockville and Gananoque, seem to have the strongest municipal plans in terms of protecting biodiversity in the region. This is important as these are the two population centers of the FAB, so they could potentially be the most detrimental to ecological integrity. They have recognized this and created regulations to protect against it. Brockville’s Plan seems to be strongest of them all, going beyond Gananoque’s to provide specific requirements for buffer zone sizes and locations. Otherwise, the two plans are quite similar. The County of Frontenac’s basis document for their upcoming Official Plan looks promising. It is positive that they have recognized the need for a municipal plan to unite and guide their Lower-­‐Tier municipalities. The FAB is being consulted throughout the creation of the Plan, and as such, they should highly encourage the following to be included: regulations on buffer zones, policies and land designations protecting the habitat of species at risk, requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases, and a regular inventory of species at risk found in the region. Once the Plan is complete and in the implementation phase, it should be combed through for the items in Table 18 above and compared to the other municipal plans in the FAB. The United Counties of Leeds and Grenville are the obvious weak link in terms of Official Plans, since they do not have one or have any plans to create one. Their Sustainability Plan unites the Lower-­‐Tier municipalities in certain ways, but is not as comprehensive or as biodiversity-­‐focused as an Official Plan would be. Further, only one of the twelve Lower-­‐Tier municipalities mentions wildlife in its priorities. This does not necessarily mean that the condition of wildlife is poor in Leeds and Grenville, but it does mean that if significant changes were to occur in a population, there would be no regulations or monitoring in place to detect or stop this. Lower-­‐Tier municipalities may have their own Official Plans with provisions to protect wildlife, but having no guiding document from their Upper-­‐Tier municipality weakens their efforts and misrepresents them. Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 55 Watershed Plans All of the conservation authorities within the Arch have been assessed to have strong enough Strategic Plans to theoretically protect biodiversity in the FAB (“theoretically” because each of them acknowledges that it takes community-­‐wide cooperation to put their plans into effect). An ecosystem approach to conservation is an effective strategy to use, particularly with the limited budgets of conservation authorities. They must choose wisely what to put their funds and efforts into to have the most effect, and protecting habitat quality rather than specific species is the best way to do so as it ends up helping a wider range of organisms. Adaptive management is also crucial for detecting problems in populations and adjusting tactics accordingly. All three Authorities use these methods, which is why we have assessed them all to have adequate Strategic Plans. The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority appears to have the strongest Strategic Plan of them all for the Lower Rideau Watershed. What puts it above and beyond the other Plans is its scale – the plan is specifically for the lower part of the watershed, and within the Plan, detail up to individual tributaries is discussed. It is clear that the Conservation Authority knows its strengths and weaknesses in every corner of the watershed and has a strategy to work with each of these in order to better protect the habitat of wildlife. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority’s Official Plan is also strong because it discusses specific areas of its watershed, although it does not go as in-­‐depth as the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Its aim for specialized management plans for each sub-­‐watershed means that each area will get individualized attention where it is most required. Although it is the oldest plan, it was meant to cover 20 years and employs adaptive management strategies, so it is still valid. Its failure to mention species at risk was not seen as a weakness either because of its ecosystem approach to conservation, which will inherently aid all species. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction covers the majority of the Arch, meaning that most of the FAB has this one strong and unifying Strategic Plan guiding it. The Upper St. Lawrence-­‐Thousand Islands watershed also has the Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust working towards conservation, giving the area double protection. Quinte Conservation’s Strategic Plan for the Napanee Watershed is the weakest of the lot. It is a 4-­‐page document that does not discuss a scale finer than the entire watershed and does not mention species at risk. The document available on the website appears to be made shorter and easy to read for public access, which is a positive, but if there is a longer official Strategic Plan document, it should also be made publicly available. All in all, though, the Plan is not weak enough to raise any red flags. It still employs an ecosystem approach and adaptive management strategies, which strengthen it. Further, the Napanee watershed only marginally crosses Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 56 into the FAB on its west end, meaning that Quinte Conservation’s Strategic Plan only affects a very small region of the FAB. Protected Lands The species at risk distribution map overlain with major protected areas shows that the location of protected areas coincides with species at risk. This is positive, since protected areas can be a safe haven for sensitive species as previously discussed. It is interesting to note the corridor in between Frontenac Provincial Park and Charleston Lake Provincial Park where none of the 23 species at risk available for mapping were found. This report does not have the capacity to comment on whether the protection the parks offer caused species at risk to inhabit areas within or surrounding the parks, or whether parks were originally created in these areas due to high biodiversity pre-­‐existing in the region, including species at risk. This would be an interesting topic for future Biodiversity groups in ENSC 430 to look into. One way to determine this would be to protect a parcel of land within the corridor currently void of species at risk, then to re-­‐examine the area in five to ten years to see whether any of the 23 mapped species at risk are found in or near this new protected land. We have found that the two provincial parks and one national park within the FAB boundary are important conservation areas as there are species at risk present in each of them. Parks and protected areas help to preserve the habitat of these species and minimize disturbances as well as any anthropogenic influences that are causing them harm or threatening their survival. The parks represent varied areas of the FAB and are spaced out in an effective manner. Charleston Lake Provincial Park has two types of bedrock, granite and sandstone, each with distinct biodiversity (Friends of Charleston Lake, 2012). There is even greater diversity where these two types border one another. The forest region is that of the Great Lakes-­‐St. Lawrence Lowlands, nevertheless, the arch and river landforms are corridors for the short and long term migration of plants and animals from the boreal northland, the Atlantic coast, the continental heartland, the Appalachian Mountains, and the Carolinian south (Friends of Charleston Lake, 2012). Thus, there is great intermingling of species within Charleston Lake Provincial Park and it is an area with extreme diversity. The complex physical landscape allows a tremendous number of habitats and niches to exist, with much of the biodiversity being at its natural range limits. The park has one of the highest numbers of species at risk in Canada, which shows richness of landscape, as well as the importance of the park in preserving the habitat (Friends of Charleston Lake, 2012). Frontenac Provincial Park is located along the Frontenac Axis, which is a southerly extension of the Precambrian Shield. The landscape is often barren rock with a ridge and valley topography (Clavering, 2005). This park also is home to a range of Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 57 species at risk and is crucial in their protection. St. Lawrence Islands National Park has a range of geological and climactic characteristics that have given the park a great span of biodiversity. The park provides important habitat for rare species and botanical diversity is enhanced thanks to the abundance of wetlands (Parks Canada, 2012). Due to this botanical diversity, the park provides abundant breeding habitat, leading to a large bird population, along with many reptiles and amphibians. The National Park is vital in protecting species against the effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation from erosion of shoreline, species isolation, and hence genetic isolation, due to the natural seclusion of islands, and exotic species (Parks Canada, 2012). Measures to Protect Species at Risk | Page 58 8.0 OPPORTUNITIES Moving forward, five key opportunities for improvement and increased protection of biodiversity have been identified, as outlined below. The first set of recommendations address how the research presented in this report can be improved upon and expanded moving forward. The second set of recommendations relate to how the results of this report can be integrated into the FABN’s program and put into practice. Expanding upon the current set of research: 1. Complete the comprehensive species list 2. Analyze potentially extirpated species 3. Request corrections in NHIC database and map hotspots Integrating the results and putting them into practice: 4. Implement a yearly monitoring program 5. Collaborate with parks and townships to create regulations 1. Complete the comprehensive species list As identified in Section 3.0, the short time period of this study limited our scope to the organisms of highest interest: vertebrates and vascular plants. This report provides a baseline snapshot of the FAB for vertebrates, plants, and Species at Risk, but a comprehensive snapshot will not be achieved until the same level of data is collected on aquatic ecosystems, bugs, and non-­‐vascular plants. Future partnerships between the FAB and ENSC 430 can potentially focus on collecting data on these organisms and finalizing the comprehensive species list. 2. Analyze potentially extirpated species Species with a single reference source were flagged in the comprehensive species list for further analysis. There is an opportunity to further analyze all flagged species in order to determine whether the species has been extirpated from the area or whether there was a flaw in the original observation and recording process. Upon determining which species have been extirpated, an analysis can be conducted to determine the last observation of the species in the area and any anthropogenic factors or other pressures that may have resulted in extirpation. Following this research, there is potentially an opportunity to re-­‐introduce species in the area. However, a more comprehensive study must be conducted first in order to analyze the benefits of such reintroductions on the current ecosystems. Opportunities | Page 59 3. Request corrections in NHIC database and map hotspots Requests to correct the flaw in the NHIC database have been initiated. However, it is recommended that future ENSC 430 teams potentially follow up with the NHIC and set out to complete the Species at Risk hotspot distribution map that this report intended to create. Our intention was to create a map with the same 1 km square grid, whereby each square would be a darker shade if there were more Species at Risk present within the 1 km square. As such, a cluster of dark squares could be identified as a Species at Risk hotspot area. This type of map will surely be useful in terms of complimenting the work that has already been completed in this report and further directing conservation efforts towards the most efficient and effective protection plan possible. The NHIC should also prioritize the mapping of the additional 23 Species at Risk found in the FAB for which distribution maps were not available. The mapping of all 46 Species at Risk in the FAB plus the correction of the mapping data to allow for hotspots to be found would allow a complete analysis of Species at Risk. 4. Implement a yearly monitoring program Now that a database of vertebrates and plants has been established, it is up to the FABN to build up records and monitor sensitive species moving forward. We propose a style of monitoring similar to that used by the Kingston Field Naturalists (KFN) in performing their yearly BioBlitz species records. KFN takes volunteers out to a new location near Kingston every year for 24 hours to record as many species as possible to obtain an idea of the biodiversity of the local area. The FABN can implement something similar to this, but may focus on a different group of species on each excursion to ensure a more exhaustive list. For example, one each of mammals, herpetofauna, birds, and plants could be examined every year so that each group of organisms would be monitored every 4 years. Using volunteers from the local community to record species is an innovative way of combining education and citizen involvement while cutting costs of monitoring for the FAB. The FABN could also team up with townships or parks within the biosphere to perform species surveys in more than one area of the FAB every year. This will build up the temporal scope of species lists, which was fairly limited at the onset of this study. The FABN should also keep track of the statuses of all 46 species at risk every year to ensure that their species at risk database is kept up-­‐to-­‐date. This will be a simple yearly task for the FABN wherein they crosscheck the list we have created in this report with species on the COSEWIC online registry and in the OMNR online registry, which already track the status of all species at risk in Canada and in Ontario. Opportunities | Page 60 5. Collaborate with parks and municipalities to create regulations As discussed in Section 7.4, the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville currently have no Official Plan, and the County of Frontenac is in the process of creating one. The FAB has the opportunity here to ensure that these plans are created with adequate provisions for biodiversity. Both of these Upper-­‐Tier municipalities require Plans that can guide their Lower-­‐Tier municipalities and concentrate efforts in the right places. The County of Frontenac stated in its basis document for its Official Plan that it would be consulting with the FAB. Therefore, they should advise the County to include the following provisions in their Plan: regulations on buffer zones, policies and land designations protecting the habitat of Species at Risk, requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases, and a regular inventory of Species at Risk found in the region. Next, the FAB should open communications with the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville and strongly recommend the creation of an Official Plan that includes the same provisions listed above. Completing these tasks will ensure that all major municipalities within the FAB are aware of wildlife in their surroundings and doing their part to protect it. Opportunities | Page 61 9.0 CONCLUSION The Frontenac Arch Biosphere (FAB) is a biodiversity hotspot where five forest types merge to form a unique region that also serves as an important migration corridor. In order for the FAB to sustain itself into the future, a rich diversity of wildlife must be protected, as it makes up the integrity of the environment base that society and economy depend upon and grow out of. The FAB has always known that biodiversity in the region is particularly high due to its geographic location; this report has provided the necessary data to back this statement up. Species lists are a visual catalogue of the area’s diversity and provide a baseline that the FAB can use for future monitoring, which should be a priority. Comparing the FAB’s wildlife to other areas quantifies the idea of biodiversity numerically and shows just how important it is to conserve habitats in the region. The species at risk distribution maps, although significantly handicapped by the data errors from the NHIC, give a rough idea of priority areas for protection, while overlays demonstrate what is already being done in these areas, whether it be destruction by humans or land conservation. This part of the project also provides a clear vision of what should happen next: once NHIC data is fixed, individual distribution maps should be created for all 46 species at risk in the Arch and overlain similarly to this project, so priority areas for protection can be found and action taken towards these. A review of the current provisions protecting species at risk and other wildlife in the FAB produced promising results but with some room for improvement. The two largest population centers in the FAB, Gananoque and Brockville, have a variety of policies for wildlife protection. All of the watersheds within the FAB use an affordable and effective management strategy. The weakest area here was that one municipality, Leeds & Grenville, lacked an overarching Official Plan to protect wildlife; the creation of a Plan should be a priority within the FAB. Overall, biodiversity within the FAB appears to be in a good state. It is crucial that the FAB staff continue to monitor wildlife and build on the baseline we have provided in this report, in order to track the status of species throughout time. The opportunities outlined in Section 8.0 give guidance to the FAB on other actions that can be taken to strengthen any weak points noted in our research, so that they can achieve their long-­‐term goal of sustainability through sustaining the health of nature. Conclusion | Page 62 10.0 REFERENCES Boulinier, T., et al. (1998). Estimating species richness: The importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79(3), 1018-­‐28. Canadian Biodiversity. (2012.) What is biodiversity? Canadian Heritage. Retrieved from http://canadian biodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/intro/index.htm (accessed October 2, 2012) Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. (2001). Strategic plan: Cataraqui to 2020. Retrieved from http://www.cataraquiregion.on.ca/about/stratplan.htm (accessed December 2, 2012). City of Brockville & MMM Group. (2012). City of Brockville official plan. Retrieved from http://city.brockville.on.ca/UploadedFiles/Brockville%20Official%20Plan_Approved%20Feb%209%20'1
2_01.pdf (accessed November 28, 2012). Clavering R. (2005). Frontenac Provincial Park: Interior Camping Impact Study. Parks Research Forum of Ontario: 115-­‐126. Retrieved from http://casiopa.mediamouse.ca/wp-­‐content/uploads/2010/05/PRFO-­‐
2005-­‐Proceedings-­‐p115-­‐126-­‐Clavering.pdf (accessed December 2, 2012). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (2003). Canadian species at risk. Retrieved from http://www.cosepac.gc.ca/htmlDocuments/CDN_SPECIES_AT_RISK_ May2003_e.htm (accessed November 5, 2012). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (2012). Database of wildlife species assessed by Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Retrieved from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm (accessed October 25, 2012) County of Frontenac. (2009). Directions for our future: County of Frontenac guide to sustainability. Retrieved from http://frontenac.credit360.com/directions (accessed November 29, 2012). County of Frontenac. (2012). Frontenac County official plan. Retrieved from http://www.frontenaccounty.ca/node/278 (accessed November 29, 2012). Cozzi, A., Glavina, A., Laing, R., Lloyd, A., Moodie, K. (2010). Land indicators: Integrating biodiversity and conservation to ensure the sustainability of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. ENSC 430. Retrieved from http://ensc430.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/land-­‐indicators-­‐2010.pdf (accessed November 23, 2012). Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., & Boitani, L. (2007). Changes in land-­‐use/land-­‐cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landscape Ecology 22, 617-­‐631. Feest, A. (2006). Establishing baseline indices for the quality of the biodiversity of restored habitats using a standardized sampling process. Journal of the Society for Ecological Restoration 14: 112-­‐122. Fleishman, E., Noss, R. F., & Noon, B. R. (2006). Utility and limitations of species richness metrics for conservation planning. Ecological Indicators 6(3): 543-­‐553. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.07.005 (accessed December 3, 2012) References | Page 63 Foley, J.A., DeFries, et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734): 570-­‐574. Foody, G.M. (2002). Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment 80: 185-­‐201. Forman, R.T.T. and Alexander, L.E. (1998). Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-­‐231. Friends of Charleston Lake. (2012). About the lake, the land and the eco-­‐system. Retrieved from http://www.friendsofcharlestonlake.ca/Park.html (accessed December 2, 2012). Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network. (2012.) About biosphere reserves. Retrieved from http://fabr.ca/About%20our%20Biosphere%20Reserve.htm (accessed October 2, 2012). Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. (2010). Watersheds – Explore the Arch. Retrieved from http://www.explorethearch.ca/learn-­‐about-­‐the-­‐arch/water/watersheds (accessed December 3, 2012). Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. (2012.) Flora. Retrieved from http://www.explorethearch.ca/learn-­‐about-­‐
the-­‐arch/flora (accessed November 5, 2012). Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. (2012). FABR home. Retrieved from http://www.fabr.ca/index.htm (accessed December 4, 2012). Halls, A.J. (ed.). (1997). Wetlands, biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: The role of the convention on wetlands in the conservation and wise use of biodiversity. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland. Leeds & Grenville. (2012). Integrated community sustainability plan: Stepping forward to pursue a sustainable future (draft – November 22). Retrieved from http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/invest/resources/Leeds_Grenville_ICSP_DRAFT_Nov_22_2012.pdf (accessed November 29, 2012). Levrel, H., Kerbiriou, C., Couvet, D., Weber, J. (2009). OECD pressure-­‐state-­‐response indicators for managing biodiversity: a realistic perspective for a French biosphere reserve. Biodiversity and Conservation 18(7): 1719-­‐1732. Margules, C.R., & Pressey, R.L. (2000.) Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature 405: 243-­‐253. McAfee, B., & Malouin, C. (2008). Implementing ecosystem-­‐based management approaches in Canada’s forests. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/nrcan/Fo4-­‐21-­‐2008E.pdf (accessed December 3, 2012). McKee, J.K., Sciulli, P.W., Fooce, C.D., & Waite, T.A. (2004). Forecasting global biodiversity threats associated with human population growth. Biological Conservation 115(1): 161-­‐164. Noss, R.F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4(4): 355-­‐364. References | Page 64 Noss, R.F. (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115(2-­‐3): 135-­‐146. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2010). Section 1: The planning act. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1760.aspx (accessed November 27, 2012). Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2011). Section 2: An overview of local government. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page8391.aspx (accessed November 27, 2012). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2010). What species are at risk in Ontario? Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/STEL01_131230.html (accessed December 4, 2012). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Biodiversity – Amphibians. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166927.html (accessed October 20, 2012) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Biodiversity – Birds. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166930.html (accessed October 20, 2012) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Biodiversity – Mammals. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166933.html (accessed October 20, 2012) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Biodiversity – Reptiles. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166928.html (accessed October 20, 2012) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Biodiversity – Vascular Plants. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_166918.html (accessed October 20, 2012) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2012). Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html (accessed October 20, 2012) Ontario Parks. (2005). It’s in our nature. Retrieved from http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/today_protected.html (accessed December 3, 2012). Parks Canada. (2008). National parks system. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-­‐pn/pr-­‐
sp/index_e.asp (accessed December 3, 2012). Parks Canada. (2012). Species at risk in the Thousand Islands ecosystem. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-­‐np/on/lawren/natcul/natcul3.aspx (accessed October 14, 2012) References | Page 65 Parks Canada. (2012). St. Lawrence Islands National Park of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-­‐
np/on/lawren/natcul/natcul2.aspx (accessed December 2, 2012). Parks Canada. (2012). What is ecological integrity? Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-­‐
learn/prof/itm1-­‐con/on/eco/eco1_e.asp (accessed November 2, 2012). Quinte Conservation. (2010). Quinte Conservation strategic plan: 2010 to 2020. Retrieved from http://quinteconservation.ca/web/images/stories/about_us/publications_and_brochures/corporate_i
nformation/strategic_plan.pdf (accessed December 3, 2012). Rideau Valley Conservation Authority & Robinson Consultants Inc. (2005). Lower Rideau Watershed strategy: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.rvca.ca/watershed/watershed_planning/lower/Revised%20Executive%20SummaryLRWS2.
pdf (accessed December 3, 2012). Scott, J. Michael, et al. (1987). Species Richness. BioScience 37(11), 782-­‐8. Smith, W. H., & Rissler, L. J. (2010). Quantifying Disturbance in Terrestrial Communities: Abundance-­‐Biomass Comparisons of Herpetofauna Closely Track Forest Succession. Restoration Ecology 18(S1), 195-­‐204. Retrieved from doi: 10.1111/j.1526-­‐100X.2009.00600.x (accessed December 4, 2012) Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile Gananoque. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3507024 (accessed December 4, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile Brockville. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3507015 (accessed December 4, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile Rideau Lakes Township. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3507040 (accessed December 4, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile Athens Township. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3507042 (accessed December 4, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile South Frontenac Township. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3510020 (accessed December 4, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile Elizabethtown-­‐Kitley Township. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3507014 (accessed December 4, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 Census of Population -­‐ Census Profile Leeds and Thousand Islands Township. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/mobile/2011/cp-­‐pr/table-­‐eng.cfm?SGC=3507021 (accessed December 4, 2012). References | Page 66 Thousand Islands Watershed Land Trust. (2012). The 1000 Islands Watershed Land Trust. Retrieved from http://www.tiwlt.ca/index.html (accessed December 3, 2012). Town of Gananoque & Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2009). Our heritage, our town, our future: The Town of Gananoque official plan. Retrieved from http://www.gananoque.ca/sites/gananoque.ca/files/Official-­‐
Plan.pdf (accessed November 29, 2012). Treweek, J., Therival, R., Thompson, S. & Slater, M. (2005). Principles for the use of strategic environmental assessment as a tool for promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. . J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 07(2): 173-­‐199. UNESCO. (2012.) Ecological sciences for sustainable development: Thousand Islands-­‐Frontenac Arch. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-­‐sciences/environment/ecological-­‐sciences/biosphere-­‐
reserves/europe-­‐north-­‐america/canada/thousand-­‐islands-­‐frontenac-­‐arch/ (accessed October 2, 2012) United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012.) What is sustainability? Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm (accessed November 5, 2012) Waide, R. B., et al. (1999). The relationship between productivity and species richness. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30(1), 257-­‐300. References | Page 67 COMPREHENSIVE SPECIES LIST REFERENCES Atlas of the Breeding Bird of Ontario. (2012). Atlas data summary search (location: Region 22, Thousand Islands). Retrieved from http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/datasummaries.jsp (accessed October 14, 2012). Charleston Lake Provincial Park. (n.d.). Charleston Lake Provincial Park Wildlife Checklist Pamphlet. Conboy, Mark and Crowder, Adele. (2009). Trees, Shrubs and Vines of Queen's University Biological Station. Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/qubs/resources/specieslists/plants/qubs_trees_shrubs_vines.pdf (accessed October 15, 2012). Conboy, Mark and Martin, Paul. (2009). Birds of Queen's University Biological Station. Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/qubs/resources/specieslists/birds/qubs_bird_list_May09.pdf (accessed October 12, 2012). Conboy, Mark and Phelan, Frank. (2010). Mammals of Queen's University Biological Station. Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/qubs/resources/specieslists/mammals/qubs_mammal_list.pdf (accessed October 10, 2012). Friends of Frontenac Park. (1995). Frontenac Provincial Park: A checklist of vertebrate animals and vascular plants. Canada: Friends of Frontenac Park. Kingston Field Naturalists. (2004). KFN BioBlitz 2004 (location: Mitchell Creek Property northwest of Frontenac Provincial Park, ON). The Blue Bill, 51(3), 66-­‐71. Kingston Field Naturalists. (2005). BioBlitz 2005 Report (location: Lost Bay Nature Reserve, ON). The Blue Bill, 52(3), 71-­‐79. Print. Kingston Field Naturalists. (2008). The Great Canadian BioBlitz 2008 (location: Elbow Lake, ON). The Blue Bill, 55(3), 94-­‐114. Kingston Field Naturalists. (2010). KFN BioBlitz 2010 (location: Morton, ON). The Blue Bill, 57(3), 68-­‐83. Kingston Field Naturalists. (2011). KFN BioBlitz 2011 (location: Lost Bay Nature Reserve, Gananoque Lake, ON). The Blue Bill, 58(3), 81-­‐103. Natural Heritage Information Center. (2012). Rare species, vegetation types and wildlife concentration areas occurrence data. Retrieved from http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/species/shapefile.cfm (accessed October 15, 2012). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2002). Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas. Retrieved from http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/herps/ohs.html (accessed October 9, 2012). Peterson, Roger Tory and McKenny, Margaret. (1968). The Peterson field guide series: Written log of wildflowers at the Meisel Property. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. References | Page 68 Plant List for Rock Dunder (south of Jones Fall's Road). Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/qubs/resources/specieslists/plants/rock_dunder_plants.pdf (accessed November 5, 2012). Queen's University Biological Station. List of QUBS Amphibians and Reptiles. Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/qubs/resources/specieslists/herps.html (accessed October 12, 2012). Reichl, O.K. (2011). Species checklists for the Thousand Islands ecosystem. Retrieved from http://www.oliverkilian.com/1000islands/species/tie_species_lists.htm (accessed November 14, 2012). Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. (2009). Bard Natural Area management plan 2009: Foley Mountain Conservation Area species list. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. (n.d.). Foley Mountain Conservation Area Extensive Flora and Fauna List. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. (n.d.). Foley Mountain Conservation Area Checklist. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. (n.d.). Meisel Woods Checklist. Schindler, C. (2012). Plant, bird, mammal, and herpetofauna species lists for the Gould Lake Conservation Area [unpublished]. Assembled for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. (2012). North American mammals map search (location: 44° 15' N, 76° 30' W). Retrieved from http://nhb-­‐
arcims.si.edu/mammals_arcims/viewer.htm?Title=North%20American%20Mammals (accessed October 20, 2012). References | Page 69 DISTRIBUTION MAP OVERLAYS REFERENCES DMTI Spatial Inc. (2010). Major roads & highways (HRD) – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). DMTI Spatial Inc. (2011). Land Use (LUR) – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). DMTI Spatial Inc. (2011). Parks and Recreation – Regions (PRR) – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). DMTI Spatial Inc. (2011). Route file (RTE) – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2002). Southern Ontario land resource information system (SOLRIS) (2000-­‐2002) – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (2011). Wetland unit – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). Statistics Canada. (2007). Census subdivision – digital boundary file (CSD-­‐DBF), 2006 census – Vector data layer. Generated by Elizabeth Andrews; using Scholars GeoPortal. Retrieved from http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/ (generated November 14, 2012). References | Page 70 11.0 GLOSSARY Adaptive Management: A dynamic conservation strategy involving constant monitoring of key indicators in an ecosystem. Data from monitoring is used as feedback on the health of the ecosystem and conservation priorities and regulations are constantly adjusted according to this monitoring feedback. (Rideau Valley Conservation Authority & Robinson Consultants Inc., 2005) Count Data: The total number of species recorded in an area at a given time (Boulinier et al., 1998). Ecological Integrity: A way of describing ecosystem health. Implies that all natural ecological processes are functioning and self-­‐sustaining, there is a minimum of anthropogenic interference, biodiversity is maintained, and structure, composition and function of the ecosystem are sound (Parks Canada, 2012). Ecosystem Approach to Conservation: a conservation strategy wherein ecosystems are considered and protected as holistic interdependent entities rather than focusing conservation efforts on isolated individual species. This approach involves a focus on the underlying processes that ensure ecosystem health, such as water quality and soil pH, and takes human influence into consideration (McAfee & Malouin, 2008). Pressure-­‐State-­‐Response Approach: Pressure, state and response (PSR) indicators provide a broad indication on the condition of the environment. It is important to examine all three types of indicators in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the state of the environment, how it arrived at its current state, what is influencing its current state, and efforts that are being taken to improve this state (Levrel et al., 2009). Pressure indicators highlight potential stressors on the environment that are influencing its current health. State indicators provide a reference of where the current state of the environment stands. Finally, response indicators show what is being done in order to improve the current state of the environment or reduce the pressures. Species Richness: The number of species types present in a given area (Boulinier et al., 1998). Glossary | Page 71 FOREWORD This Frontenac Arch Biosphere is situated in southeast Ontario and is a designated biosphere reserve according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Programme. The unique regions shows great biodiversity as it provides a crossroads of migration routes and contains 5 distinct forest regions. The rolling hills, rugged cliffs, forests, and wetlands of the biosphere provide a habitat or migration route for approximately 37 herpetofauna, 283 birds, 62 mammals, and 1210 vascular plants. Please note that invertebrate and non-­‐vascular plants are not included. This comprehensive species list was compiled for the purposes of a State of the Environment Report conducted by the Queen’s Environmental Science Honours Project (ENSC 430) class, in partnership with the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network (FABN). Data was collected with the assistance of multiple organizations and individual biologists, to whom we are grateful: Queen’s University Biological Station Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Frontenac Provincial Park Charleston Lake Provincial Park Kingston Field Naturalists Natural Heritage Information Centre Atlas of the Breeding Bird of Ontario Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History Individuals: Oliver K. Reichl, Peter Goddard Should you require further information on the original reference data used to compile this species list, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Elizabeth Andrews [email protected] Leia de Guzman [email protected] Caroline Keddy [email protected] Caitlin Schindler [email protected] Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 74 HERPETOFAUNA Species denoted with an asterisk (*) indicate that the species was only cited in a single source. In total, 37 herpetofaunal species were found in the Arch. CLASS AMPHIBIA ORDER ANURA TRUE TOADS BUFONIDAE Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus TREE FROGS HYLIDAE * Green Tree Frog Hyla cinerea Gray Tree Frog Hyla versicolor Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer TRUE FROGS RANIDAE Bull Frog Lithobates catesbeianus Green Frog Lithobates clamitans Pickerel Frog Lithobates palustris Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens Mink Frog Lithobates septentrionalis Wood Frog Lithobates sylvaticus Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata PLETHODONTIDAE ORDER CAUDATA LUNGLESS SALAMANDERS Northern Two-­‐Lined Salamander Eurycea bislineata Four-­‐Toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Red-­‐Backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus MOLE SALAMANDERS AMBYSTOMATIDAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 76 Herpetofauna * Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Blue-­‐Spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale Yellow-­‐Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum TRUE SALAMANDERS AND NEWTS SALAMANDRIDAE Red-­‐Spotted Newt Notophthalmus viridescens CLASS REPTILIA ORDER TESTUDINES SNAPPING TURTLES CHELYDRIDAE Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina POND TURTLES EMYDIDAE Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta * Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Common Map Turtle Graptemys geographica MUD AND MUSK TURTLES KINOSTERNIDAE Common Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus COLUBRIDAE ORDER SQUAMATA SNAKES Northern Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta Eastern Hog-­‐Nosed Snake Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum Northern Water Snake Nerodia sipedon Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis Gray Ratsnake Pantherophis spiloides Northern Brown Snake Storeria dekayi Northern Redbelly Snake Storeria occipitomaculata Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 77 Herpetofauna Eastern/Northern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis LIZARDS SCINCIDAE Five-­‐Lined Skink Plestiodon fasciatus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 78 Herpetofauna BIRDS The taxonomic sequence below follows the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-­‐List of North American Birds (7th Edition). Species denoted with an asterisk (*) indicate that the species was only cited in a single source. In total, 283 bird species were found in the Arch. ORDER ANSERIFORMES WATERFOWL ANATIDAE Wood Duck Aix sponsa Northern Pintail Anas acuta American Wigeon Anas americana Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Green-­‐Winged Teal Anas crecca Blue-­‐Winged Teal Anas discors Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope Mallard Anas platyrhynchos American Black Duck Anas rubripes Gadwall Anas strepera Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Redhead Aythya americana Ring-­‐Necked Duck Aythya collaris Greater Scaup Aythya marila Canvasback Aythya valisineria Brant Branta bernicla Canada Goose Branta canadensis Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula * Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Long-­‐Tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 80 Birds * Mute Swan Cygnus olor * Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus White-­‐Winged Scoter Melanitta fusca * Black Scoter Melanitta nigra Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Common Merganser Mergus merganser Red-­‐Breasted Merganser Mergus serrator Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis * King Eider Somateria spectabilis ODONTOPHORIDAE * Bobwhite Quail Colinus virginianus FOWL PHASIANIDAE Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Gray Partridge Perdix perdix Ring-­‐Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus ORDER GALLIFORMES NEW WORLD QUALIS ORDER GAVIIFORMES LOONS OR DIVERS GAVIIDAE Common Loon Gavia immer * Red-­‐Throated Loon Gavia stellata ORDER PODICIPEDIFORMES GREBES PODICIPEDIDAE Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Red-­‐Necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena Pied-­‐Billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 81 Birds ORDER SULIFORMES CORMORANTS PHALACROCORACIDAE Double-­‐Crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ARDEIDAE * Great Egret Ardea alba Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Green Heron Butorides virescens Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Black-­‐Crowned Night-­‐Heron Nycticorax nycticorax ORDER PELECANIFORMES HERONS ORDER ACCIPITRIFORMES NEW WORLD VULTURES CATHARTIDAE Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura HAWKS AND EAGLES ACCIPITRIDAE Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sharp-­‐Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Red-­‐Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Rough-­‐Legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Red-­‐Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Broad-­‐Winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Osprey Pandion haliaetus FALCONIDAE ORDER FALCONIFORMES FALCONS Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 82 Birds Merlin Falco columbarius Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus * Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus American Kestrel Falco sparverius RALLIDAE * Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis American Coot Fulica americana Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus * Common Gallinule Gallinula galeata King Rail Rallus elegans Sora Porzana carolina Virginia Rail Rallus limicola limicola CRANES GRUIDAE Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis CHARADRIIDAE * Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus Charadrius vociferus * American Golden-­‐Plover Pluvialis fulva * Black-­‐Bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola AVOCETS AND STILTS RECURVIROSTRIDAE * American Avocet Recurvirostra americana SANDPIPERS AND ALLIES SCOLOPACIDAE Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius * Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Bartramia longicauda ORDER GRUIFORMES RAILS AND ALLIES ORDER CHARADRIIFORMES PLOVERS Killdeer Upland Sandpiper Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 83 Birds * Sanderling Calidris alba Calidris alpina * Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii * Red Knot Calidris canutus * White-­‐Rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis * Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima * Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Short-­‐Billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus * Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus * Red-­‐Necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus * Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor American Woodcock Scolopax minor Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria solitaria GULLS AND TERNS LARIDAE Black Tern Chlidonias niger * Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Herring Gull Larus argentatus Ring-­‐Billed Gull Larus delawarensis * Lesser Black-­‐Backed Gull Larus falcus * Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides * Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Great Black-­‐Backed Gull Larus marinus Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia Leucophaeus pipixcan Dunlin * Franklin's Gull Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 84 Birds * Black-­‐Legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla * Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Common Tern Sterna hirundo SKUAS AND JAEGERS STERCORARIIDAE * Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus ORDER COLUMBIFORMES PIGEONS AND DOVES COLUMBIDAE Rock Pigeon Columba livia Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura ORDER CUCULIFORMES CUCKOOS CUCULIDAE Yellow-­‐Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Black-­‐Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus ORDER STRIGIFORMES OWLS STRIGIDAE Northern Saw-­‐Whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Short-­‐Eared Owl Asio flammeus Long-­‐Eared Owl Asio otus Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Eastern Screech Owl Megascops asio Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa Barred Owl Strix varia Northern Hawk-­‐Owl Surnia ulula ORDER CAPRIMULGIFORMES NIGHTJARS CAPRIMULGIDAE Whip-­‐Poor-­‐Will Caprimulgus vociferous Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 85 Birds Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor ORDER APODIFORMES SWIFTS APODIDAE Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica HUMMINGBIRDS TROCHILIDAE Ruby-­‐Throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris ORDER CORACIIFORMES KINGFISHERS ALCEDINIDAE Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon ORDER PICIFORMES WOODPECKERS PICIDAE Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Red-­‐Bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-­‐Headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Black-­‐Backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus American Three-­‐Toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Yellow-­‐Bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius ORDER PASSERIFORMES TYRANT FLYCATCHERS TYRANNIDAE Olive-­‐Sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis Eastern Wood-­‐Pewee Contopus virens Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Yellow-­‐Bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 86 Birds Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii * Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus SHRIKES LANIIDAE Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus VIREOS VIREONIDAE Yellow-­‐Throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Red-­‐Eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Blue-­‐Headed Vireo Vireo solitarius CORVIDS CORVIDAE American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Raven Corvus corax * Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis LARKS ALAUDIDAE Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris SWALLOWS HIRUNDINIDAE Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Purple Martin Progne subis Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 87 Birds Southern Rough-­‐Winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Northern Rough-­‐Winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor CHICKADEES PARIDAE Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Black-­‐Capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudsonica NUTHATCHES SITTIDAE Red-­‐Breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis White-­‐Breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis CREEPERS CERTHIIDAE Brown Creeper Certhia americana * Eurasian Treecreeper Certhia familiaris WRENS TROGLODYTIDAE Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus House Wren Troglodytes aedon Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes GNATCATCHERS POLIOPTILIDAE Blue-­‐Gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea KINGLETS REGULIDAE Ruby-­‐Crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Golden-­‐Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa satrapa THRUSHES TURDIDAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 88 Birds Veery Catharus fuscescens Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Gray-­‐Cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis American Robin Turdus migratorius MIMICS MIMIDAE Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum STARLINGS STURNIDAE European Starling Sturnus vulgaris PIPITS MOTACILLIDAE American Pipit Anthus rubescens WAXWINGS BOMBYCILLIDAE Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus WOOD-­‐WARBLERS PARULIDAE * Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Black-­‐Throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Bay-­‐Breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Yellow-­‐Rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor * Yellow-­‐Throated Warbler Dendroica dominica Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 89 Birds Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Chestnut-­‐Sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Black-­‐Throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Yellow-­‐Breasted Chat Icteria virens Black-­‐and-­‐White Warbler Mniotilta varia * Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia Northern Parula Parula americana * Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Hooded Warbler Setophaga citrina * Myrtle Warbler Setophaga coronata * Western Palm Warbler Setophaga palmarum American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Orange-­‐Crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Golden-­‐Winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Blue-­‐Winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla TANAGERS THRAUPIDAE Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 90 Birds * Summer Tanager Piranga rubra SPARROWS EMBERIZIDAE Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum * Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Dark-­‐Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea Clay-­‐Colored Sparrow Spizella pallida Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla White-­‐Throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis White-­‐Crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys CARDINALIDS CARDINALIDAE Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Rose-­‐Breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus NEW WORLD BLACKBIRDS ICTERIDAE Red-­‐Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Northern/Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 91 Birds * Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Brown-­‐Headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Xanthocephalus * Yellow-­‐Headed Blackbird xanthocephalus FINCHES FRINGILLIDAE Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra White-­‐Winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator WEAVERS PASSERIDAE House Sparrow Passer domesticus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 92 Birds MAMMALS The taxonomic sequence below follows Wilson & Reeder’s Mammal Species of the World (3rd Edition). Species denoted with an asterisk (*) indicate that the species was only cited in a single source. In total, 62 mammal species were found in the Arch. OPOSSUMS DIDELPHIDAE * Common Opossum Didelphis marsupialis Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana SQUIRRELS, CHIPMUNKS, SCIURIDAE MARMOTS, PRAIRIE DOGS, ETC. Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans Woodchuck/Groundhog Marmota monax Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus BEAVERS CASTORIDAE Beaver Castor canadensis JERBOAS DIPODIDAE Woodland Jumping Mouse Napaeozapus insignis Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius VOLES, LEMMINGS, RATS CRICETIDAE Southern Red-­‐Backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi RATS, MICE, VOLES, GERBILS, ETC. MURIDAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 94 Mammals Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus House Mouse Mus musculus White-­‐Footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus NEW WORLD PORCUPINES ERETHIZONTIDAE North American Porcupine Erethizon dorsatus HARES AND RATS LEPORIDAE Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus * European Hare Lepus europaeus White-­‐Tailed Jack Rabbit Lepus townsendii Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus SHREWS SORICIDAE Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Northern Short-­‐Tailed Shrew Sorex brevicauda Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Smoky Shrew Sorex fumeus Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Water Shrew Sorex palustris MOLES AND DESMANS TALPIDAE Star-­‐Nosed Mole Condylura cristata Hairy-­‐Tailed Mole Parascalops breweri COMMON BATS VESPERTILIONIDAE Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Silver-­‐Haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 95 Mammals Eastern Small-­‐Footed Bat Myotis leibii Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Northern Long-­‐Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus CATS FELIDAE * House Cat Felis silvestris catus Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Bobcat Lynx rufus * Eastern Cougar Puma concolor DOGS, WOLVES, FOXES, AND CANIDAE JACKALS Coyote Canis latrans Grey Wolf Canis lupus Common Grey Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Red Fox Vulpes fulvus BEARS URSIDAE American Black Bear Ursus americanus WEASELS, OTTERS, SKUNKS, MUSTELIDAE BADGERS Northern River Otter Lontra canadensis River Otter Lontra canadensis * American Marten Martes americana Fisher Martes pennanti Ermine Mustela erminea Long-­‐Tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Least Weasel Mustela nivalis American Mink Neovison vison Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 96 Mammals SKUNKS, STINK BADGERS MEPHITIDAE Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis RACOONS PROCYONIDAE Northern Raccoon Procyon lotor DEER CERVIDAE Moose Alces alces * Elk Cervus elaphus White-­‐Tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 97 Mammals VASCULAR PLANTS The taxonomic sequence below follows the Integrated Taxonimic Information System. Species denoted with an asterisk (*) indicate that the species was only cited in a single source. In total, 1210 vascular plant species were found in the Arch. HORSETAILS EQUISETACEAE Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense Water Horsetail Equisetum fluviatile Rough Horsetail Equisetum hyemale Smooth Horsetail Equisetum laevigatum * Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre Meadow Horsetail Equisetum pratense Dwarf Scouring-­‐Rush Equisetum scirpoides Woodland Horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum QUILLWORTS ISOETACEAE * Quillwort Isoetes echinospora CLUBMOSSES LYCOPODIACEAE * Trailing Clubmoss Diphasiastrum complanatum Fan Clubmoss Diphasiastrum digitatum Shining Leaf Clubmoss Huperzia lucidula Stiff Clubmoss Lycopodium annotinum Running Clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum Ground Cedar Lycopodium complanatum * Ground Pine Lycopodium dendroideum Rare Clubmoss Lycopodium obscurum Deeproot Clubmoss Lycopodium tristachyum SPIKEMOSSES SELAGINELLACEAE Spikemoss/Northern Selaginella Selaginella rupestris Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 100 Vascular Plants FLOWERING FERNS OSMUNDACEAE Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamomea Interrupted Fern Osmunda claytoniana Royal Fern Osmunda regalis SPLEENWORTS ASPLENIACEAE Ebony Spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron American Walking Fern Asplenium rhizophyllum Maidenhair Spleenwort Asplenium trichomanes DEER-­‐FERNS BLECHNACEAE Virginia Chainfern Woodwardia virginica BRACKEN FERNS DENNSTAEDTIACEAE Hayscented Fern Dennstaedtia punctilobula Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum WOOD FERNS DRYOPTERIDACEAE Lady Fern Athyrium filix-­‐femina Bulblet Bladderfern Cystopteris bulbifera Common Fragile Fern Cystopteris fragilis * Mackay's Bladder Fern Cystopteris tenuis Silvery Glade-­‐Fern Deparia acrostichoides Spinulose Wood Fern Dryopteris carthusiana Clinton's Wood Fern Dryopteris clintoniana Crested Wood Fern Dryopteris cristata * Fragrant Cliff Fern Dryopteris fragrans Goldie's Woodfern Dryopteris goldiana Evergreen Wood Fern Dryopteris intermedia Marginal Shield Fern Dryopteris marginalis * Triploid Wood-­‐Fern Dryopteris triploidea Gymnocarpium dryopteris Oak Fern Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 101 Vascular Plants Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis Christmas Fern Polystichum acrostichoides New York Fern Thelypteris noveboracensis Northern Beech Fern Thelypteris phegopteris Rusty Woodsia Woodsia ilvensis Blunt-­‐Lobed Woodsia Woodsia obtusa POLYPODS POLYPODIACEAE Rock Polypody Polypodium virginianum MAIDENHAIR FERNS PTERIDACEAE Northern Maidenhair Fern Adiantum pedatum Slender Cliff-­‐Brake Cryptogramma stelleri * Purple-­‐Stemmed Cliff-­‐Brake Pellaea atropurpurea Smooth Cliff-­‐Brake Pellaea glabella MARSH FERNS THELYPTERIDACEAE Broad Beech Fern Phegopteris hexagonoptera Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris CLIFF FERNS WOODSIACEAE Silvery Spleenwort Athyrium thelypteroides TROPICAL FERNS SCHIZAEACEAE * Curly-­‐Grass Fern Schizaea pusilla ADDERS-­‐TONGUES OPHIOGLOSSACEAE Cutleaf Grape Fern Botrychium dissectum * Triangle Moonwort Botrychium lanceolatum Daisy-­‐Leaf Grape Fern Botrychium matricariifolium Leathery Grape Fern Botrychium multifidum Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 102 Vascular Plants * Rugulose Grapefern Botrychium rugulosum Dwarf Grape Fern Botrychium simplex Rattlesnake Fern Botrychium virginianum Adder's Tongue Fern Ophioglossum pusillum PARSLEYS APIACEAE Goutweed Aegopodium podagraria * Indian Dill Anethum graveolens * Common Caraway Carum carvi Bulblet-­‐Bearing Water Hemlock Cicuta bulbifera Spotted Water Hemlock Cicuta maculata Canadian Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis Wild Carrot/Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota * Cow Parnsnip Heracleum maximum American Water-­‐Pennywort Hydrocotyle americana Hairy Sweet-­‐Cicely Osmorhiza claytonii Smoother Sweet-­‐cicely Osmorhiza longistylis Wild Parsnip Pastinaca sativa * Garden Parsley Petroselinum crispum * Canada Snakeroot Sanicula canadensis Black Snakeroot Sanicula marilandica Clustered Snake-­‐Root Sanicula odorata * Large-­‐Fruited Snakeroot Sanicula trifoliata Water Parsnip Sium suave * Yellow Pimpernel Taenidia integerrima * Common Alexanders Zizia aurea GINSENGS ARALIACEAE Bristly Sarsaparilla Aralia hispida Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis Spikenard Aralia racemosa * English Ivy Hedera helix Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 103 Vascular Plants American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius Dwarf Ginseng Panax trifolius HOLLIES AQUIFOLIACEAE * Catberry Ilex mucronata Winterberry Holly Ilex verticillata Mountain Holly Nemopanthus mucronatus ASTERS ASTERACEAE Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Pearly Everlasting Anaphalia margaritacea Field Pussytoes Antennaria neglecta Parlin's Pussytoes Antennaria parlinii Plantain-­‐Leaf Pussytoes Antennaria plantaginifolia * Fetid Camomile Anthemis cotula * Golden Camomile Anthemis tinctoria Common Burdock Arctium minus * Common Wormwood Artemisia vulgaris Whorled Wood Aster Aster acuminatus * Common Blue Wood Aster Aster cordifolius Tufted White Prairie Aster Aster ericoides Panicled Aster Aster lanceolatus Large-­‐Leaved Aster Aster macrophyllus New England Aster Aster novae-­‐angliae * New Belgium Aster Aster novi-­‐belgii Swamp Aster Aster puniceus Flat-­‐Topped White Aster Aster umbellatus * Water-­‐Marigold Bidens beckii Nodding Beggar-­‐Ticks Bidens cernua * Swamp Beggar-­‐Ticks Bidens connata Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 104 Vascular Plants Devil's Beggar-­‐ticks Bidens frondosa Beggarticks Bidens sp. Straw-­‐Stem Beggar ticks Bidens tripartita * Cornflower Centaurea cyanus * Spotted Star-­‐Thistle Centaurea solstitialis Chicory Cichorium intybus Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense * Swamp Thistle Cirsium muticum Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Fleabane/Horseweed Conyza canadensis American Burnweed Erechtites hieraciifolia Daisy Fleabane Erigeron annuus Philadelphia Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus Lesser Daisy Fleabane Erigeron strigosus White-­‐Top Fleabane Erigeron vernus Hollow Joe Pye Weed Eupatoriadelphus fistulosus Spotted Joe Pye Weed Eupatoriadelphus maculatus Eastern Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium dubium Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum * Purple-­‐Jointed Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium purpureum * Wild Snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum Large-­‐Leaf Wood Aster Eurybia macrophylla Flat-­‐Top Goldentop Euthamia graminifolia * Fringed Quickweed Galinsoga quadriradiata Fragrant Cudweed Gnaphalium obtusifolium Low Cudweed Gnaphalium uliginosum * Common Sunflower Helianthus annuus Woodland Sunflower Helianthus divaricatus * Pale-­‐Leaf Sunflower Helianthus strumosus Orange Hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum Canada Hawkweed Hieracium canadense Glaucous Hawkweed Hieracium floribundum Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 105 Vascular Plants * Panicled Hawkweed Hieracium paniculatum Mouse Ear Hawkweed Hieracium pilosella Tall Hawkweed Hieracium piloselloides Field Hawkweed Hieracium pratense Rough Hawkweed Hieracium scabrum Elecampane Flower Inula helenium Tall Blue Lettuce Lactuca biennis Canada Lettuce Lactuca canadensis * Garden Lettuce Lactuca sativa Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola * Nipplewort Lapsana communis * Autumn Hawkbit Leontodon autumnalis Ox-­‐Eye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Dense Blazing Star Liatris spicata Pineapple-­‐Weed Chamomile Matricaria discoidea * Water Marigold Megalodonta beckii White Rattlesnake-­‐Root Prenanthes alba Tall White Lettuce Prenanthes altissima Tall White Rattlesnake-­‐Root Prenanthes trifoliata * Winged Cudweed Pseudognaphalium viscosum Black-­‐Eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta * Balsam Ragwort Senecio pauperculus * Sticky Groundsel Senecio viscosus * Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris Tall Goldenrod Solidago altissima * Shorthair Goldenrod Solidago altissima * Sharp-­‐Leaved Goldenrod Solidago arguta White Goldenrod Solidago bicolor Bluestem Goldenrod Solidago caesia Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis Zig-­‐Zag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis Smooth Goldenrod Solidago gigantea Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 106 Vascular Plants Hairy Goldenrod Solidago hispida Early Goldenrod Solidago juncea Gray Goldenrod Solidago nemoralis Rough-­‐Leaf Goldenrod Solidago patula * Upland White Goldenrod Solidago ptarmicoides * Downy Goldenrod Solidago puberula Wrinkle-­‐Leaf Goldenrod Solidago rugosa Stout Goldenrod Solidago squarrosa Field Sow-­‐Thistle Sonchus arvensis Spiny-­‐Leaf Sow-­‐Thistle Sonchus asper * Common Sow-­‐Thistle Sonchus oleraceus Heart-­‐Leaf Aster Symphyotrichum cordifolium * Smooth Aster Symphyotrichum laeve Calico Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum * Ontario Aster Symphyotrichum ontarione * Arrow-­‐Leaved Aster Symphyotrichum urophyllum * Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare * Red-­‐Seeded Dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Yellow Salsify Tragopogon dubius Yellow Goatsbeard Tragopogon pratensis Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara * Rough Cockle-­‐Bur Xanthium strumarium HAREBELLS CAMPANULACEAE Marsh Bellflower Campanula aparinoides * Peach-­‐Leaved Bellflower Campanula persicifolia * Creeping Bellflower Campanula rapunculoides Bluebell Bellflower Campanula rotundifolia Cardinal Flower Lobelia cardinalis Indian Tobacco Lobelia inflata * Kalm's Lobelia Lobelia kalmii Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 107 Vascular Plants Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica Pale-­‐Spiked Lobelia Lobelia spicata * Clasp-­‐Leaf Venus' Looking-­‐Glass Triodanis perfoliata BORAGES BORAGINACEAE * Common Borage Borago officinalis Hound's Tongue Cynoglossum officinale Viper's Bugloss Echium vulgare * Northern Stickseed Hackelia deflexa Virginia Waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum * Bristly Stickseed Lappula squarrosa European Gromwell Lithospermum officinale * Tall Bluebells Mertensia paniculata * Rough Forget-­‐Me-­‐Not Myosotis arvensis * Small-­‐Flowered Forget-­‐Me-­‐Not Myosotis laxa * True Forget-­‐Me-­‐Not Myosotis scorpioides * Forget-­‐Me-­‐Not Myosotis sp. DOGWOODS CORNACEAE Alternate Leaved Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Bunchberry Cornus canadensis Stiff Dogwood Cornus foemina * Pale Dogwood Cornus obliqua Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa Round-­‐Leaved Dogwood Cornus rugosa Red Osier Dogwood Cornus sericea HYDRANGEAS HYDRANGEACEAE * Hoary Mock-­‐Orange Philadelphus pubescens MUSKROOTS ADOXACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 108 Vascular Plants Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum HONEYSUCKLES CAPRIFOLIACEAE Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera Linnaea borealis Twinflower Fly Honeysuckle Lonicera canadensis Climbing Honeysuckle Lonicera dioica Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hirsuta * Morrow Honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii Swamp Fly Honeysuckle Lonicera oblongifolia * Trumpet Honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica * Bell's Honeysuckle Lonicera bella * European Fly Honeysuckle Lonicera xylosteum Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Perfoliate Tinker's-­‐Weed Triosteum perfoliatum Maple-­‐Leaved Viburnum Viburnum acerifolium Northern Wild-­‐Raisin Viburnum cassinoides Southern Arrow-­‐Wood Viburnum dentatum Alderleaf Viburnum Viburnum lantanoides Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Downy Arrowwood Viburnum rafinesquianum TOUCH-­‐ME-­‐NOTS BALSAMINACEAE Spotted Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Pale Jewel-­‐Weed Impatiens pallida WHITE ALDERS CLETHRACEAE * Sweet Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 109 Vascular Plants HEATHS ERICACEAE Bog Rosemary Andromeda polifolia Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-­‐ursi Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata Chimaphila umbellata Pipsissewa Creeping Snowberry Gaultheria hispidula Eastern Wintergreen Gaultheria procubens Wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens Black Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata Sheep Laurel Kalmia angustifolia Pale Laurel Kalmia polifolia Labrador-­‐Tea Ledum groenlandicum Pinesap Monotropa hypopithys Indian Pipe Monotropa uniflora One-­‐Side Wintergreen Orthilia secunda * American Wintergreen Pyrola americana Pink Wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia Greenflowered Wintergreen Pyrola chlorantha Shinleaf Pyrola elliptica * Common Wintergreen Pyrola minor * Sidebells Wintergreen Pyrola secunda Late Low Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Large Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon Velvet-­‐Leaf Blueberry Vaccinium myrtilloides Small Cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos Early Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium pallidum * Deerberry Vaccinium stamineum PHLOXES POLEMONIACEAE Blue Phlox Phlox divaricata * Moss Phlox Phlox subulata Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 110 Vascular Plants PRIMROSES PRIMULACEAE Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata Creeping Loosestrife Lysimachia nummularia * Spotted Loosestrife Lysimachia punctata Earth Loosestrife Lysimachia terrestris Tufted Loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora Yellow Loosestrife Lysimachia vulgaris Starflower Trientalis borealis PITCHER-­‐PLANTS SARRACENIACEAE Purple Pitcher Plant Sarracenia purpurea DOGBANES APOCYNACEAE Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium Clasping-­‐Leaved Dogbane Apocynum cannabinum Poke Milkweed Asclepias exaltata Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberosa * Green Milkweed Asclepias viridiflora * Black Swallow-­‐Wort Cynanchum louiseae * Dog-­‐Strangling Vine Cynanchum nigrum * Common Valerian Valeriana officinalis Common Periwinkle Vinca minor GENTIANS GENTIANACEAE Fringe-­‐Top Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewsii * Stiff Gentian Gentianella quinquefolia MADDERS RUBIACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 111 Vascular Plants Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Stickywilly Galium aparine Rough Bedstraw Galium asprellum Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale Licorice Bedstraw Galium circaezans Torrey's Wild Licorice Galium lanceolatum * Great Hedge Bedstraw Galium mollugo Blunt-­‐Keaf Bedstraw Galium obtusum Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre * Hairy Bedstraw Galium pilosum Stiff Marsh Bedstraw Galium tinctorum Small Bedstraw Galium trifidum Fragrant Bedstraw Galium triflorum Yellow Spring Bedstraw Galium verum Partridgeberry Mitchella repens TRUMPET CREEPERS BIGNONIACEAE * Northern Catalpa Catalpa speciosa MINTS LAMIACEAE * Downy Woodmint Blephilia ciliata * American Dragon-­‐head Dracocephalum parviflorum Brittlestem Hemp Nettle Galeopsis tetrahit Creeping Charlie Glechoma hederacea Rough Penny-­‐Royal Hedeoma hispida * False Pennyroyal Hedeoma sp. Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca American Bugleweed Lycopus americanus European Bugleweed Lycopus europaeus Bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus Wild Mint Mentha arvensis * Scarlet Beebalm Monarda didyma Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 112 Vascular Plants Wild Bee-­‐balm Monarda fistulosa Catnip Nepeta cataria Selfheal Prunella vulgaris * Virginia Mountain-­‐Mint Pycnanthemum virginianum Wild Basil Satureja vulgaris Marsh Skullcap Scutellaria galericulata Blue Skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora * Veined Skullcap Scutellaria nervosa * Small Skullcap Scutellaria parvula * Hispid Hedge-­‐Nettle Stachys hispida Marsh Hedge-­‐Nettle Stachys palustris * Rough Hedge Nettle Stachys rigida * Wood Germander Teucrium scorodonia Mother-­‐of-­‐Thyme Thymus serpyllum BLADDERWORTS LENTIBULARIACEAE Horned Bladderwort Utricularia cornuta Flat Leaved Bladderwort Utricularia intermedia Common Bladderwort Utricularia macrorhiza Greater Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris OLIVES OLEACEAE White Ash Fraxinus americana * European Ash Fraxinus excelsior Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Red Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris BROOM-­‐RAPES OROBANCHACEAE * Squaw-­‐Root Conopholis americana Beechdrops Epifagus virginiana One-­‐Flowered Broomrape Orobanche uniflora Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 113 Vascular Plants * Indian Paintbrush Castilleja sp. PLANTAINS PLANTAGINACEAE Narrow-­‐Leaved Plantain Plantago lanceolata Common Plantain Plantago major Blackseed Plantain Plantago rugelii FIGWORTS SCROPHULARIACEAE Smallflower False Foxglove Agalinis paupercula * Large Purple Agalinis Agalinis purpurea * Slender Agalinis Agalinis tenuifolia * Common Dwarf Snapdragon Antirrhinum majus White Turtlehead Chelone glabra * Yellow Foxglove Digitalis grandiflora * Purple Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Butter and Eggs Linaria vulgaris American Cow-­‐wheat Melampyrum lineare Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens Canadian Lousewort Pedicularis canadensis Foxglove Beard-­‐Tongue Penstemon digitalis Hairy Beardtongue Penstemon hirsutus * Long-­‐Leaf Speedwell Pseudolysimachion longifolium * Hare Figwort Scrophularia lanceolata Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Water Speedwell Veronica anagallis-­‐aquatica Corn Speedwell Veronica arvensis * European Speedwell Veronica beccabunga * Germander Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys Common Speedwell Veronica officinalis Neckweed Veronica peregrina Skullcap Speedwell Veronica scutellata Thymeleaf Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 114 Vascular Plants VERVAINS VERBENACEAE Lopseed Phryma leptostachya Swamp Verbena Verbena hastata * Blue Vervain Verbena hastata MORNING-­‐GLORIES CONVOLVULACEAE Hedge False Bindweed Calystegia sepium * Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis * Buttonbush Dodder Cuscuta cephalanthi Cuscuta gronovii Common Dodder Common Morning-­‐Glory Ipomoea purpurea NIGHTSHADES SOLANACEAE * Deadly Nightshade Atropa belladonna * Purple Thorn-­‐Apple Datura stramonium * Clammy Ground-­‐Cherry Physalis heterophylla * Long-­‐Leaf Ground-­‐Cherry Physalis longifolia Climbing Nightshade Solanum dulcamara * Garden Tomato Solanum lycopersicum Black Nightshade Solanum nigrum * Eastern Black Nightshade Solanum ptycanthum * White Potato Solanum tuberosum AMARANTHS AMARANTHACEAE Red-­‐Root Amaranth Amaranthus retroflexus * Rough-­‐Fruit Amaranth Amaranthus tuberculatus Chenopodium album Lambsquarters * Pit-­‐seed Goosefoot Chenopodium berlandieri Blite Goosefoot Chenopodium capitatum Fogg's Goosefoot Chenopodium foggii Giant-­‐seed Goosefoot Chenopodium giganteum Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 115 Vascular Plants * Oak-­‐Leaved Goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum Chenopodium hybridum Mapleleaf Goosefoot * Maple-­‐Leaved Goosefoot Chenopodium simplex PINKS CARYOPHYLLACEAE Grove Sandwort Arenaria lateriflora Thymeleaf Sandwort Arenaria serpyllifolia Field Chickweed Cerastium arvense Common Mouse-­‐Ear Chickweed Cerastium fontanum * Nodding Chickweed Cerastium nutans Deptford Pink Dianthus armeria * Maiden Pink Dianthus deltoides * Baby's Breath Gypsophila paniculata * Mullein Pink Lychnis coronaria * Red Campion Lychnis dioica Michaux's Stitchwort Minuartia michauxii * Procumbent Pearlwort Sagina procumbens Bouncing Bet Saponaria officinalis * Soap Wort Saponaria sp. Sleepy Catchfly Silene antirrhina * Sweet William Catchfly Silene armeria Bladder Campion Silene cucubalis Wide-­‐Leaved Bladder Catchfly Silene latifolia Night-­‐Flowering Catchfly Silene noctiflora * Widowsfrill Silene stellata Maidenstears Silene vulgaris * Bog Chickweed Stellaria alsine Common Starwort Stellaria graminea Longleaf Starwort Stellaria longifolia * Lesser Starwort Stellaria longipes Common Chickweed Stellaria media Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 116 Vascular Plants SUNDEWS DROSERACEAE Sundew Drosera rotundifolia POKEWEEDS PHYTOLACCACEAE * Common Pokeweed Phytolacca americana BUCKWHEATS POLYGONACEAE * Dock-­‐Leaf Smartweed Persicaria lapathifolia Water Knotweed Polygonum amphibium Halberdleaf Tearthumb Polygonum arifolia Prostrate Knotweed Polygonum aviculare Fringed Black Bindweed Polygonum cilinode Black Bindweed Polygonum convolvulus * Japanese Knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Douglas' Knotweed Polygonum douglasii Marsh-­‐Pepper Smartweed Polygonum hydropiper Mild Smartweed Polygonum hydropiperoides * Pennsylvania Smartweed Polygonum pensylvanicum Lady's Thumb Polygonum persicaria Dotted Smartweed Polygonum punctatum Arrow-­‐Leaved Smartweed Polygonum sagittatum Climbing False Buckwheat Polygonum scandens * Virginia Knotweed Polygonum virginianum * Rhubarb Rheum rhabarbarum Sheep Sorrel Rumex acetosella Curly Dock Rumex crispus Water Dock Rumex hydrolapathum Swamp Dock Rumex verticillatus PURSLANES PORTULACACEAE * Carolina Spring-­‐Beauty Claytonia caroliniana Virginia Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 117 Vascular Plants Common Purslane Portulaca oleracea HORNWORTS CERATOPHYLLACEAE Coon's Tail Ceratophyllum demersum Prickly Hornwort Ceratophyllum echinatum SWEETFLAGS ACORACEAE Calamus/Sweetflag Acorus calamus WATER-­‐PLANTAINS ALISMATACEAE * Grass-­‐leaved Water-­‐Plantain Alisma gramineum European Water-­‐Plantain Alisma plantago-­‐aquatica Southern Water-­‐Plantain Alisma subcordatum Arumleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata * Grassleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria graminea Broadleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia * Sessile-­‐Fruited Arrowhead Sagittaria rigida ARUMS ARACEAE Jack-­‐in-­‐the-­‐Pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Water Arum Calla palustris Common Duckweed Lemna minor Star Duckweed Lemna trisulca * Turion Duckweed Lemna turionifera Green Arrow-­‐Arum Peltandra virginica Common Duckmeat Spirodela polyrrhiza Watermeal Wolffia sp. FLOWERING RUSHES BUTOMACEAE Flowering Rush Butomus umbellatus FROG’S-­‐BITS HYDROCHARITACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 118 Vascular Plants Canadian Waterweed Elodea canadensis Common Frog's-­‐Bit Hydrocharis morsus-­‐ranae Slender Naiad Najas flexilis Water Celery Vallisneria americana * Eel-­‐Grass Zostera marina PONDWEEDS POTAMOGETONACEAE Largeleaf Pondweed Potamogeton amplifolius * Curly Pondweed Potamogeton crispus * Emersed Pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus * Thread-­‐Leaf Pondweed Potamogeton filiformis * Leafy Pondweed Potamogeton foliosus * Fries' Pondweed Potamogeton friesii Grassy Pondweed Potamogeton gramineus * Illinois Pondweed Potamogeton illinoensis Floating Pondweed Potamogeton natans * Blunt-­‐Leaved Pondweed Potamogeton obtusifolius Clasping-­‐Leaf Pondweed Potamogeton perfoliatus White-­‐Stem Pondweed Potamogeton praelongus Slender Pondweed Potamogeton pusillus Richardson's Pondweed Potamogeton richardsonii * Robbin's Pondweed Potamogeton robbinsii * Dimorphous Pondweed Potamogeton spirillus * Narrow-­‐Leaved Pondweed Potamogeton strictifolius Flatstem Pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis Sago Pondweed Stuckenia pectinata * Horned Pondweed Zannichellia palustris IRISES IRIDACEAE * German Iris Iris germanica * Yellow Iris Iris pseudacorus Larger Blue Flag Iris versicolor Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 119 Vascular Plants Pointed Blue-­‐Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium augustifolium * Blue-­‐Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium implicatum Strict Blue-­‐Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanum ORCHIDS ORCHIDACEAE * Putty Root Aplectrum hyemale * Tuberous Grass-­‐Pink Calopogon tuberosus * Long-­‐Bracted Orchis Coeloglossum viridae Summer Coralroot Corallorhiza maculata * Yellow Coralroot Corallorhiza trifida Pink Lady's-­‐Slipper Cypripedium acaule * Ram's-­‐Head Lady's-­‐Slipper Cypripedium arietinum Greater Yellow Lady's Slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Broadleaf Helleborine Epipactis helleborine Showy Orchid Galearis spectabilis Downy Rattlesnake Plantain Goodyera pubescens * Lesser Rattlesnake Plantain Goodyera repens Checkered Rattlesnake-­‐Plantain Goodyera tesselata Yellow Widelip Orchid Liparis loeselii Green Adder's-­‐Mouth Orchid Malaxis unifolia * Norther Green Orchid Platanthera aquilonis Small Green Wood Orchid Platanthera clavellata Pale Green Orchid Platanthera flava Hooker's Orchid Platanthera hookeri * Tall Northern Green Orchid Platanthera hyperborea * Large Round-­‐Leaved Orchid Platanthera macrophylla Lesser Purple Fringed Orchid Platanthera psycodes Rose Pogonia Pogonia ophioglossoides Ladies'-­‐Tresses Spiranthes casei * Nodding Ladies'-­‐Tresses Spiranthes cernua * Southern Slender Ladies'-­‐Tresses Spiranthes gracilis Northern Slender Ladies'-­‐Tresses Spiranthes lacera Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 120 Vascular Plants * Hooded Ladies'-­‐Tresses Spiranthes romanzoffiana * Wide-­‐Leaved Ladies' Tresses Spirathes lucida PICKEREL-­‐WEEDS PONTEDERIACEAE Grassleaf Mud-­‐Plantain Heteranthera dubia * Heart-­‐Leaved Pickerel-­‐Weed Monochoria vaginalis Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata LILIES LILIACEAE * Meadow Onion Allium canadense * Cultivated Chives Allium schoenoprasum Wild Leek Allium tricoccum * Garden Asparagus-­‐Fern Asparagus densiflorus Garden Asparagus Asparagus officinalis Bluebead Clintonia borealis Dogtooth Violet Erythronium americanum * Trout Lily Erythronium sp. * Dog-­‐Toothed Violet Erythronium sp. Orange Day-­‐Lily Hemerocallis fulva * Yellow Day-­‐Lily Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus * Tiger Lily Lilium lancifolium Wood Lily Lilium philadelphicum Canada Mayflower Maianthemum canadense Feathery False Lily of the Valley Maianthemum racemosum Starry False Lily of the Valley Maianthemum stellatum Indian Cucumber Medeola virginiana * Honey-­‐Flowered Solomon's-­‐Seal Polygonatum biflorum * Giant Solomon's-­‐Seal Polygonatum commutatum Eurasian Solomon's-­‐Seal Polygonatum multiflorum Hairy Solomon's Seal Polygonatum pubescens Three-­‐Leaf False Solomon's-­‐Seal Smilacina trifolia Twisted Stalk Streptopus roseus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 121 Vascular Plants Red Trillium Trillium erectum White Trillium Trillium grandiflorum * Painted Trillium Trillium undulatum Largeflower Bellwort Uvularia grandiflora Perfoliate Bellwort Uvularia perfoliata Sessile-­‐Leaved Bellwort Uvularia sessilifolia GREENBRIERS SMILACAEAE Carrion Flower Smilax herbacea * Prickly Greenbrier Smilax tamnoides SEDGES CYPERACEAE * Silvery Sedge Carex canescens Ebony Sedge Carex eburnea Little Prickly Sedge Carex echinata Yellow Sedge Carex flava * Gray Sedge Carex grayii * Long's Sedge Carex longii * Blue Ridge Sedge Carex lucorum Nerveless Muhlenberg's Sedge Carex muehlenbergii * Houghton's Flatsedge Cyperus houghtonii * Rough Cotton-­‐Grass Eriophorum tenellum * Hidden Sedge Carex abdita Stellate Sedge Carex albicans White-­‐Tinged Sedge Carex albicans White Bear Sedge Carex albursina Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea * Yellow-­‐Fruited Sedge Carex annectens Water Sedge Carex aquatilis Drooping Woodland Sedge Carex arctata * Hay Sedge Carex argyrantha * Dry Woods Sedge Carex artitecta Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 122 Vascular Plants * Awned Sedge Carex atherodes * Rocky Mountain Sedge Carex backii Bebb's Sedge Carex bebbii Woodland Sedge Carex blanda Brome-­‐Like Sedge Carex bromoides Brownish Sedge Carex brunnescens Oval-­‐Leaved Sedge Carex cephalophora Fibrous-­‐Root Sedge Carex communis Longhair Sedge Carex comosa * Crawford Sedge Carex crawfordii Fringed Sedge Carex crinita Crested Sedge Carex cristatella * Northeastern Sedge Carex cryptolepis Clustered Sedge Carex cumulata Short-­‐Scale Sedge Carex deweyana Soft-­‐Leaf Sedge Carex disperma Inflated Sedge Carex exsiccata Fescue Sedge Carex festucacea * Slender Wood Sedge Carex gracilescens Graceful Sedge Carex gracillima Meadow Sedge Carex granularis Pubescent Sedge Carex hirtifolia Porcupine Sedge Carex hystericina Inland Sedge Carex interior Great Bladder Sedge Carex intumenscens Bladder Sedge Carex intumescens Lake-­‐Bank Sedge Carex lacustris Slender Sedge Carex lasiocarpa Spreading Sedge Carex laxiculmis Broad Looseflower Sedge Carex laxiflora Finely-­‐Nerved Sedge Carex leptonervia * Livid Sedge Carex livida Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 123 Vascular Plants Hop Sedge Carex lupulina Sallow Sedge Carex lurida * Black Sedge Carex nigra Black-­‐Edged Sedge Carex nigromarginata Normal Sedge Carex normalis Pale Sedge Carex pallescens Long-­‐Stalk Sedge Carex pedunculata Woolly Sedge Carex pellita Pennsylvania Sedge Carex pensylvanica Plantain-­‐Leaf Sedge Carex plantaginea Broadleaf Sedge Carex platyphylla * Field Sedge Carex praegracilis * Drooping Sedge Carex prasina Necklace Sedge Carex projecta Cypress-­‐Like Sedge Carex pseudocyperus * Loose-­‐Flowered Sedge Carex rariflora Retrorse Sedge Carex retrorsa Rosy Sedge Carex rosea Beaked Sedge Carex rostrata Pointed Broom Sedge Carex scoparia Dry-­‐Spike Sedge Carex siccata Burreed Sedge Carex sparganioides Spiked Sedge Carex spicata Longbeak Sedge Carex sprengelii Stalk-­‐Grain Sedge Carex stipata Tussock Sedge Carex stricta * Blunt Broom Sedge Carex tribuloides Three-­‐Seeded Sedge Carex trisperma Tuckerman Sedge Carex tuckermanii Umbel-­‐Like Sedge Carex umbellata * Sheathed Sedge Carex vaginata Little Green Sedge Carex viridula Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 124 Vascular Plants Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea * Twig Rush Cladium mariscoides Brook Flat Sedge Cyperus bipartitus * Umbrella Flat Sedge Cyperus diandrus * Chufa Flat-­‐Sedge Cyperus esculentus * Great Plains Flat-­‐sedge Cyperus lupulinus * Rusty Flat-­‐Sedge Cyperus odoratus * Straw-­‐Colored Flat-­‐sedge Cyperus strigosus Three-­‐Way Sedge Dulichium arundinaceum Least Spikerush Eleocharis acicularis * Flat-­‐Stemmed Spikerush Eleocharis compressa Blunt Spikerush Eleocharis obtusa * Ovate Spikerush Eleocharis ovata * Creeping Spikerush Eleocharis palustris Tawny Cotton-­‐Grass Eriophorum virginicum * White Beak-­‐Rush Rhynchospora alba * Brown Beak-­‐Rush Rhynchospora fusca Hard-­‐Stemmed Bulrush Schoenoplectus acutus * Hard-­‐stem Club-­‐Rush Schoenoplectus americanus * Common Three-­‐Square Schoenoplectus pungens Great Bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani * River Club-­‐Rush Schoenoplectus validus Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens Bulrush Scirpus cyperinus * Red-­‐Tinged Bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Rufous Bulrush Scirpus pendulus * Soft-­‐Stemmed Bullrush Scirpus validus PIPEWORTS ERIOCAULACEAE Seven-­‐Angle Pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum RUSHES JUNCACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 125 Vascular Plants * Sharp-­‐Fruit Rush Juncus acuminatus Alpine Rush Juncus alpinus * Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus * Baltic Rush Juncus balticus * Short Tailed Rush Juncus brevicaudatus Toad Rush Juncus bufonius Canada Rush Juncus canadensis Dudley's Rush Juncus dudleyi Soft Rush Juncus effusus * Knotted Rush Juncus nodosus * Secund Rush Juncus secundus Path Rush Juncus tenuis * Torrey's Rush Juncus torreyi Hairy Woodrush Luzula acuminata * Common Wood-­‐Rush Luzula multiflora TRUE GRASSES POACEAE * Black Bentgrass Agrostis alba * Colonial Bentgrass Agrostis capillaris * Winter Bentgrass Agrostis hyemalis Perennial Bentgrass Agrostis perennans Rough Bentgrass Agrostis scabra Spreading Bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera Short-­‐Awn Foxtail Alopecurus aequalis Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii * Cultivated Oats Avena sativa Bearded Shorthusk Brachyelytrum erectum * Nodding Brome Bromus anomalus Fringed Brome Bromus ciliatus Smooth Brome Bromus inermis * Japanese Brome Bromus japonicus * Kalm's Brome Grass Bromus kalmii Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 126 Vascular Plants * Hairy Wood Brome Bromus pubescens * Pumpell's Brome Bromus pumpellianus Downy Brome Bromus tectorum Canada Blue Joint Calamagrostis canadensis Stout Wood Reed Cinna arundinacea Drooping Woodreed Cinna latifolia Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata Poverty Oatgrass Danthonia spicata * Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa Crinkled Hairgrass Deschampsia flexuosa * Hairgrass Deschampsia sp. Starved Panic Grass Dichanthelium depauperatum Cypress Witch-­‐Grass Dichanthelium dichotomum Broad-­‐leaf Witch-­‐Grass Dichanthelium latifolium Slimleaf Panicgrass Dichanthelium linearifolium * Smooth Crabgrass Digitaria ischaemum Hairy Crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis * Common Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crus-­‐galli Rough Barnyard Grass Echinochloa muricata Canada Wildrye Elymus canadensis Eastern Bottlebrush Grass Elymus hystrix Quackgrass Elymus repens Slender Wheat-­‐Grass Elymus trachycaulus Virginia Wild-­‐Rye Elymus virginicus * Little Love-­‐Grass Eragrostis minor * Hair Fescue Festuca amethystina * Tall Fescue Festuca arundinacea * Short-­‐Leaved Fescue Festuca brachyphylla Red Fescue Festuca rubra Nodding Fescue Festuca subverticillata * Hard Fescue Festuca trachyphylla Small Floating Manna-­‐Grass Glyceria borealis Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 127 Vascular Plants Rattlesnake Mannagrass Glyceria canadensis American Manna-­‐Grass Glyceria grandis Fowl Manna-­‐Grass Glyceria striata Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum * Common Barley Hordeum vulgare Rice Cutgrass Leersia oryzoides * Virginia Cut-­‐Grass Leersia virginica * Creeping Wild Rye Leymus triticoides American Millet Grass Milium effusum * Bog Muhly Muhlenbergia glomerata Mexican Muhly Muhlenbergia mexicana * Marsh Muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa * Green Muhly Muhlenbergia ramulosa * Schreber's Muhly Muhlenbergia schreberi Woodland Muhly Muhlenbergia sylvatica Roughleaf Ricegrass Oryzopsis asperifolia Sharp-­‐Leaved Mountain Rice Oryzopsis pungens Mountain Ricea Oryzopsis racemosa * White-­‐Grained Mountain-­‐Ricegrass Orzyopsis asperifolia Western Panic Grass Panicum acuminatum Northern Panic Grass Panicum boreale * Old Witch Panic Grass Panicum capillare * Wiry Witch Grass Panicum flexile Woolly Panic Grass Panicum lanuginosum Broad-­‐Leaved Panic Grass Panicum latifolium * Narrow-­‐Leaved panic grass Panicum linearifolium * Green Panic Grass Panicum maximum Philadelphia Panic Grass Panicum philadelphicum * Tuckerman's Panic Grass Panicum tuckermanii * Yellow Panic Grass Panicum xanthophysum * White Foxtail Pennisetum villosum Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 128 Vascular Plants Timothy Phleum pratense Common Reed Phragmites australis * Mountain Ricegrass Piptatherum pungens Blackseed Ricegrass Piptatherum racemosum Annual Bluegrass Poa annua Canada Bluegrass Poa compressa * Narrow-­‐Leaved False Oats Poa fendleriana * Inland Bluegrass Poa interior Drooping Bluegrass Poa languida Forest Bluegrass Poa nemoralis Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis Forest Meadow Grass Poa saltuensis * Nuttall Alkali Grass Puccinellia nuttalliana False Melic Schizachne purpurascens * Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium * Cultivated Rye Secale cereale * Yellow Foxtail Setaria pumila * Green Foxtail Setaria viridis * Yellow Indian-­‐Grass Sorghastrum nutans * Fresh-­‐water Cordgrass Spartina pectinata Slender Wedge-­‐Grass Sphenopholis intermedia Sheathed Dropseed Sporobolus vaginiflorus * Tall Purple-­‐Top Fluffgrass Tridens flavus * Cultivated Wheat Triticum aestivum * Slender Eight-­‐Flowered Fescue Vulpia octoflora Wild Rice Zizania palustris CATTAILS TYPHACEAE Lesser Bur Reed Sparganium americanum * Branching Bur Reed Sparganium androcladum * Slender Bur Reed Sparganium angustifolium Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 129 Vascular Plants Green Bur Reed Sparganium emersum Burred Sparganium eurycarpum * Floating Bur Reed Sparganium fluctuans Narrow-­‐Leaved Cattail Typha angustifolia Common/Broadleaf Cattail Typha latifolia LAURELS LAURACEAE * Spicebush Lindera benzoin BIRTHWORTS ARISTOLOCHIACEAE Canadian Wild Ginger Asarum canadense FANWORTS CABOMBACEAE Watershield Brasenia schreberi WATER-­‐LILIES NYMPHAEACEAE Yellow Cowlily Nuphar lutea Varigated Yellow Pond-­‐Lily Nuphar variegata White Water Lily Nymphaea odorata * Tuberous White Water-­‐Lily Nymphaea tuberosa BARBERRIES BERBERIDACEAE * Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii Common Barberry Berberis vulgaris Blue Cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides * Twinleaf Jeffersonia diphylla May Apple Podophyllum peltatum MOONSEEDS MENISPERMACEAE * Canada Moonseed Menispermum canadense POPPIES PAPAVERACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 130 Vascular Plants Climbing Fumitory Adlumia fungosa * Yellow Thistle Argemone mexicana Capnoides sempervirens Rock Harlequin * Greater Celandine Chelidonium majus Golden Corydalis Corydalis aurea Pale Corydalis Corydalis sempervirens Squirrel-­‐Corn Dicentra canadensis Dutchman's Breeches Dicentra cucullaria Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis CROWFOOTS RANUNCULACEAE White Baneberry Actaea pachypoda Red Baneberry Actaea rubra Canadian Anemone Anemone canadensis * Long-­‐Headed Thimbleweed Anemone cylindrica * Windflower Anemone nemorosa Wood Anemone Anemone quinquefolia Thimbleweed Anemone virginiana Red Columbine Aquilegia canadensis * Columbine Aquilegia sp. European Columbine Aquilegia vulgaris Yellow Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris * Purple Clematis Clematis occidentalis Devil's Darning Needles Clematis virginiana Three-­‐Leaf Goldthread Coptis trifolia Sharp-­‐Lobed Hepatica Hepatica acutiloba Round-­‐Lobed Hepatica Hepatica americana Littleleaf Buttercup Ranunculus abortivus Tall Buttercup Ranunculus acris * Early Buttercup Ranunculus fascicularis * Yellow Water-­‐Crowfoot Ranunculus flabellaris * Spearwort Buttercup Ranunculus flammula Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 131 Vascular Plants * Eastern White Water-­‐Crowfoot Ranunculus longirostris Bristly Buttercup Ranunculus pensylvanicus Hooked Crowfoot Ranunculus recurvatus Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens * Cursed Crowfoot Ranunculus sceleratus Early Meadow-­‐Rue Thalictrum dioicum King of the Meadow Thalictrum pubescens MUSTARDS BRASSICACEAE Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata Spreadingpod Rockcress Arabis divaricarpa Tower-­‐Mustard Arabis glabra * Hairy Rock Cress Arabis hirsuta Smooth Rock-­‐cress Arabis laevigata * Lyre-­‐Leaf Rock-­‐Cress Arabis lyrata Garden Yellow Rocket Barbarea vulgaris * Hoary False-­‐Alyssum Berteroa incana * Black Mustard Brassica nigra Shepherd's Purse Capsella bursa-­‐pastoris * Bulbous Bittercress Cardamine bulbosa Crinkleroot Cardamine diphylla Sand Bittercress Cardamine parviflora Pennsylvania Bittercress Cardamine pensylvanica Meadow Bitter-­‐Cress Cardamine pratensis Cut-­‐Leaf Toothwort Dentaria laciniata * Large Toothwort Dentaria maxima * Pinnate Tansy-­‐Mustard Descurainia pinnata * Herb Sophia Descurainia sophia * Carolina Whitlow-­‐Grass Draba reptans Worm-­‐Seed Mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides Dame's Rocket Hesperis matronalis Field Pepperweed Lepidium campestre Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 132 Vascular Plants Dense-­‐Flower Peppergrass Lepidium densiflorum Virginia Pepperweed Lepidium virginicum * Annual Honesty Lunaria annua Watercress Nasturtium officinale Marsh Yellowcress Rorippa palustris Tall Hedge-­‐Mustard Sisymbrium loeselii Hairy-­‐pod Hedge-­‐Mustard Sisymbrium officinale * Field Penny-­‐Cress Thlaspi arvense STAFF-­‐TREES CELASTRACEA Climbing Bittersweet Celastrus scandens BLADDERNUTS STAPHYLEACEAE American Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia GOURDS CUCURBITACEAE * Field Pumpkin Cucurbita pepo * Wild Mock-­‐Cucumber Echinocystis lobata * One-­‐Seed Bur-­‐Cucumber Sicyos angulatus LEGUMES FABACAEA Hog Peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata Ground Nut Apios americana * Canadian Milk-­‐Vetch Astragalus canadensis * Common Crown-­‐Vetch Coronilla varia * Large Tick-­‐Trefoil Desmodium brachypodum Showy Tick-­‐Trefoil Desmodium canadense * Hairy Small-­‐Leaf Tick Trefoil Desmodium ciliare Pointed-­‐Leaved Tick Trefoil Desmodium glutinosum * Bare-­‐stemmed Tick-­‐Trefoil Desmodium nudiflorum Panicledleaf Tick Trefoil Desmodium paniculatum * Prostrate Tick-­‐Trefoil Desmodium rotundifolium Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 133 Vascular Plants * Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos * American Licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota * Beach Pea Lathyrus japonicus Pale Vetchling Peavine Lathyrus ochroleucus * Sweet-­‐Pea Lathyrus odoratus * Marsh Pea Lathyrus palustris Round-­‐Head Bush Clover Lespedeza capitata * Hairy Bush-­‐Clover Lespedeza hirta * Wand Bush-­‐Clover Lespedeza intermedia * Violet Bush-­‐Clover Lespedeza violacea Bird's-­‐Foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus * Large-­‐Leaved Lupine Lupinus polyphyllus Yellow Alfalfa Medicago falcata Black Medick Medicago lupulina * Alfalfa Medicago sativa White Sweet Clover Melilotus albus Sweet Clover Melilotus officinalis Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia * Clammy Locust Robinia viscosa * Rabbit-­‐Foot Clover Trifolium arvense Yellow Hop Clover Trifolium aureum Low Hop Clover Trifolium campestre Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum Red Clover Trifolium pratense * Small Hop Clover Trifolium procumbens White Clover Trifolium repens Tufted Vetch Vicia cracca Spring Vetch Vicia sativa * Blue Vetch Vicia sp. MILKWORTS POLYGALACEAE Gaywings Polygala paucifolia Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 134 Vascular Plants * Racemed Milkwort Polygala polygama Seneca Snakeroot Polygala senega BIRCHES BETULACEAE Speckled Alder Alnus incana * Green Alder Alnus viridis Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis Mountain Paper Birch Betula cordifolia * Resin Birch Betula glandulosa White Birch Betula papyrifera Gray Birch Betula populifolia * Swamp Birch Betula pumila American Hornbeam/Blue Beech Carpinus caroliniana American Hazelnut Corylus americana Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Pale Smartweed Polygonum lapathifolum BEECHES FAGACEAE American Beech Fagus grandifolia White Oak Quercus alba Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Common Chinquapin Oak Quercus muehlenbergii Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra Black Oak Quercus velutina WALNUTS JUGLANDACEAE Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata Butternut Juglans cinerea Black Walnut Juglans nigra Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 135 Vascular Plants BAYBERRIES MYRICACEAE Sweet Fern Comptonia peregrina Sweetgale Myrica gale GERANIUMS GERANIACEAE Bicknell's Cranesbill Geranium bicknellii * Carolina Crane's-­‐Bill Geranium carolinianum Spotted Geranium Geranium maculatum * Meadow Cranesbill Geranium pratense Wild Crane's-­‐Bill Geranium robertianum SPURGES EUPHORBIACEAE Virginia Copperleaf Acalypha virginica Corrugate-­‐Seed Broom-­‐Spurge Chamaesyce glyptosperma Worm-­‐Seeded Spurge Chamaesyce vermiculata Cypress Spurge Euphorbia cyparissias * Spotted Spurge Euphorbia nutans ST. JOHNSWORTS HYPERIACEAE Lesser Canadian St. John's Wort Hypericum canadense Larger Canadian St. John's-­‐Wort Hypericum majus * Pale St. John's-­‐Wort Hypericum montanum Dwarf St. John's Wort Hypericum mutilum Common St. John's Wort Hypericum perforatum * Slender St. John's-­‐Wort Hypericum pulchrum Spotted St. John's Wort Hypericum punctatum Fraser's Marsh St. John's-­‐wort Triadenum fraseri WILLOWS SALICACEAE White Poplar Populus alba Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 136 Vascular Plants Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Large-­‐Toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata Lombardy Poplar Populus nigra Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides White Willow Salix alba Peach-­‐Leaved Willow Salix amygdaloides Bebb’s Willow Salix bebbiana Hoary Willow Salix candida Pussy Willow Salix discolor Crack Willow Salix fragilis Prairie Willow Salix humilis Sandbar Willow Salix interior Shining Willow Salix lucida * Black Willow Salix nigra * Bog Willow Salix pedicellaris Meadow Willow Salix petiolaris * Basket Willow Salix purpurea * Autumn Willow Salix serissima VIOLETS VIOLACEAE Hookedspur Violet Viola adunca Sweet White Violet Viola blanda Canada Violet Viola canadensis Alpine Violet Viola conspersa Marsh Blue Violet Viola cucullata Smooth White Violet Viola macloskeyi Downy Yellow Violet Viola pubescens Long-­‐Spur Violet Viola rostrata * Arrow-­‐Leaved Violet Viola sagittata Great-­‐Spurred Violet Viola selkirkii Common Blue Violet Viola sororia Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 137 Vascular Plants ROCK-­‐ROSES CISTACEAE * Canada Frostweed Helianthemum canadense Pinweed Lechea intermedia * Narrow-­‐Leaf Pinweed Lechea tenuifolia MALLOWS MALVACEAE * Hollyhock Alcea rosea Musk Mallow Malva moschata American Basswood Tilia americana * Little-­‐Leaf Linden Tilia cordata White Basswood Tilia heterophylla MEZEREUMS THYMELAEACEAE Eastern Leatherwood Dirca palustris LOOSESTRIFES LYTHRACEAE Swamp Loosestrife Decodon verticillatus Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria EVENING-­‐PRIMROSES ONAGRACEAE Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium Small Enchanter's Nightshade Circaea alpina Enchanter's Nightshade Circaea lutetiana Northern Willow Herb Epilobium ciliatum Purpleleaf Willowherb Epilobium coloratum Great Hairy Willow-­‐Herb Epilobium hirsutum Linear-­‐Leaved Willow-­‐Herb Epilobium leptophyllum * Swamp Willow-­‐Herb Epilobium palustre Marsh Seedbox Ludwigia palustris Common Evening Primrose Oenothera biennis * Narrow-­‐Leaved Evening-­‐Primrose Oenothera fruticosa Northern Evening-­‐Primrose Oenothera parviflora Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 138 Vascular Plants Little Evening Primrose Oenothera perennis * Sundrop Oenothera sp. WOOD-­‐SORRELS OXALIDACEAE * Yellow Wood-­‐Sorrel Oxalis corniculata Northern Wood-­‐Sorrel Oxalis montana Yellow Oxalis Oxalis stricta HEMPS CANNABACEAE * Hops Humulus lupulus OLEASTERS ELAEAGNACEAE * Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Russet Buffalo Berry Shepherdia canadensis MULBERRIES MORACEAE * White Mulberry Morus alba BUCKTHORNS RHAMNACEAE New Jersey Tea Ceanothus americanus * Glossy Buckthorn Frangula alnus Alderleaf Buckthorn Rhamnus alnifolia Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica ROSES ROSACEAE Tall Hairy Agrimony Agrimonia gryposepala * Agrimony Agrimonia pubescens Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Oblongfruit Serviceberry Amelanchier bartramiana * St. Lawrence Serviceberry Amelanchier fernaldii Smooth Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Roundleaf Serviceberry Amelanchier sanguinea Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 139 Vascular Plants Dwarf Serviceberry Amelanchier spicata Running Serviceberry Amelanchier stolonifera * Silverweed Cinquefoil Argentina anserina Marsh Cinquefoil Comarum palustre * Brainerd's Hawthorn Crataegus brainerdii * Round-­‐Leaved Hawthorn Crataegus chrysocarpa * English Hawthorn Crataegus laevigata Hawthorn Crataegus punctata * Fleshy Hawthorn Crataegus succulenta Wood Strawberry Fragaria vesca Virginia Strawberry Fragaria virginiana Yellow Avens Geum aleppicum White Avens Geum canadense * Large-­‐Leaved Avens Geum macrophyllum * Water Avens Geum rivale * Bowman's Root Gillenia trifoliata Wild Crabapple Malus coronaria Paradise Apple Malus pumila Black Chokeberry Photinia melanocarpa * Eastern Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius Hoary Cinquefoil Potentilla argentea * Tall Cinquefoil Potentilla arguta Canada Cinquefoil Potentilla canadensis Shrubby Cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa Ashy Cinquefoil Potentilla inclinata Norwegian Cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica Sulphur Cinquefoil Potentilla recta * Creeping Cinquefoil Potentilla reptans Old-­‐Field Cinquefoil Potentilla simplex Canada Plum Prunus nigra Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica Black Cherry Prunus serotina Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 140 Vascular Plants Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana Pear Pyrus communis Prickly Wild Rose Rosa acicularis Smooth Rose Rosa blanda Pasture Rose Rosa carolina * Cinnamon Rose Rosa cinnamomea Swamp Rose Rosa palustris Allegheny Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis Smooth Blackberry Rubus canadensis Northern Dewberry Rubus flagellaris Bristly Dewberry Rubus hispidus Wild Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Purple Flowering Raspberry Rubus odoratus * Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Dwarf Red Raspberry Rubus pubescens Red Raspberry Rubus sachalinensis * False Spiraea Sorbaria sorbifolia American Mountain-­‐Ash Sorbus americana * European Mountain-­‐Ash Sorbus aucuparia Showy Mountain-­‐Ash Sorbus decora Narrow-­‐Leaved Meadowsweet Spiraea alba * Willow-­‐Leaf Meadowsweet Spiraea salicifolia Steeple Bush Spiraea tomentosa * Smooth Yellow Violet Viola pensylvanica Barren Strawberry Waldsteinia fragarioides Northern Prickly-­‐Ash Zanthoxylum americanum ELMS ULMACEAE American Elm Ulmus americana * Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 141 Vascular Plants Rock Elm Ulmus thomasii NETTLES URTICACEAE False Nettle Boehmeria cylindrica Stinging Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis Pennsylvania Pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica Canada Clearweed Pilea pumila American Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica CASHEWS ANACARDIACEAE Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica * Winged Sumac Rhus copallina Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans * Poison-­‐Sumac Toxicodendron vernix SOAPBERRIES SAPINDACEAE Freeman's Maple Acer freemanii * Amur Maple Acer ginnala * Japanese Maple Acer japonicum Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Black Maple Acer nigrum Striped Maple Acer pensylvanicum Norway Maple Acer platanoides Red Maple Acer rubrum Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Mountain Maple Acer spicatum Common Horse-­‐Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum GRAPES VITACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 142 Vascular Plants Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Thicket Creeper Parthenocissus vitacea * Summer Grape Vitis aestivalis Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia SANDALWOODS SANTALACEAE Bastard Toadflax Comandra umbellata ORPINES CRASSULACEAE * Allegheny Stonecrop Hylotelephium telephioides * Garden Stonecrop Hylotelephium telephium Ditch Stonecrop Penthorum sedoides Mossy Stonecrop Sedum acre * Stringy Stonecrop Sedum sarmentosum * Orpine Sedum telephium GOOSEBERRY GROSSULARIACEAE Wild Black Currant Ribes americanum Eastern Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Skunk Currant Ribes glandulosum Wild Gooseberry Ribes hirtellum Bristly Black Currant Ribes lacustre * Northern Red Currant Ribes rubrum * Swamp Red Currant Ribes triste WATER-­‐MILFOILS HALORAGACEAE Alternate-­‐Flowered Water-­‐Milfoil Myriophyllum alterniflorum * Shortspike Watermilfoil Myriophyllum sibiricum Eurasian Watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Marsh Mermaid-­‐Weed Proserpinaca palustris WITCH-­‐HAZELS HAMAMELIDACEAE Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 143 Vascular Plants Witch-­‐Hazel Hamamelis virginiana SAXIFRAGES SAXIFRAGACEAE Golden Saxifrage Chrysosplenium americanum Mitrewort Mitella diphylla Naked Mitrewort Mitella nuda Early Saxifrage Saxifraga virginiensis Foam Flower Tiarella cordifolia CYPRESSES CUPRESSACEAE Dwarf/Common Juniper Juniperus communis * Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginana Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis YEWS TAXACEAE Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis PINES PINACEAE Balsam Fir Abies balsamea European Larch Larix decidua Tamarack Larix laricina Norway Spruce Picea abies White Spruce Picea glauca Black Spruce Picea mariana * Blue Spruce Picea pungens Red Spruce Picea rubens Jack Pine Pinus banksiana * Mugo Pine Pinus mugo Red Pine Pinus resinosa Pitch Pine Pinus rigida Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 144 Vascular Plants Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis Appendix A: Frontenac Arch Biosphere Species List | Page 145 Vascular Plants Please refer to the attached USB stick, titled “BIODIV” to view the metadata files. Folder 1. Final Report and Presentation. Includes an electronic copy of this report and the PowerPoint slides and video used for the final ENSC 430 presentation. Folder 2. Comprehensive Species List. Includes the Excel file used to compile the pre-­‐existing species lists, the final Species List booklet presented to the FABN board members, as well as copies of the original reference data that was made available electronically. Note that the numbers used to label the original reference data correspond with the reference numbers used in the Excel spreadsheet. Folder 3. Species at risk Distribution. Includes the files required for ArcGIS to map the FABR boundary with the 1 km square grids utilized by the NHIC and the various map overlays used in this report. A copy of the final maps produced is also provided. Appendix B: Guide to Metadata | Page 148 Detailed Information on Species List References Queen’s University Biological Station (Ref #1, 20): Observational Ferns were labeled as: •
Abundant -­‐ Extremely numerous, nearly impossible to miss even to the casual observer. •
Common -­‐ Observed regularly and in good numbers. •
Uncommon -­‐ Requires some effort to locate and may be missing on some outings. •
Rare -­‐ Either of very local distribution at QUBS or represented by limited observations. •
Hypothetical -­‐ This species has not been recorded at QUBS but is expected to occur. Ferns labeled as hypothetical were not included in the comprehensive species list. Trees, shrubs, and vines were labeled as: •
Abundant •
Common •
Uncommon •
Rare •
Undetermined -­‐ Status is unclear because data is deficient. Species in this category may be part of a complex of difficult to identify species and have not received the proper attention of botanists at QUBS. •
Hypothetical -­‐ To our knowledge this species has not been reported at QUBS but it may occur. Much of QUBS land has received very little careful botanical study and it is possible that hypothetical species will be found. Undetermined or hypothetical species were not included. Similarly, mammals were labeled as: •
Abundant •
Common •
Uncommon •
Rare •
Hypothetical Appendix B: Guide to Metadata | Page 149 •
Extirpated – Formerly occurred at QUBS, but no longer. Extirpated or hypothetical species were not included. Birds were labeled as: •
Breeder – Known to breed at QUBS as evidenced by nests or fledglings. •
Probable breeder – Suspected to breed at QUBS based on observations of the species at the appropriate time of year in suitable habitat. No direct evidence of breeding such as nests or fledglings has been found to date. •
Possible breeder – May breed at QUBS but there is no evidence available to suggest it does so at present. •
Former breeder – Did breed at QUBS but no longer does. This category includes extinct species. •
Winterer – Is resident for the winter. •
Year-­‐round resident – Found at QUBS all year long. •
Migrant – Is not known to breed, but does occur as a migrant in spring, autumn or both. •
Visitor – Is seen briefly during part of the year but does not breed and is not considered to be resident. •
Undetermined – Data lacking. More reports of these species will help us assign it a correct status in future editions of this checklist. •
Hypothetical – Could possibly occur at QUBS but is not yet recorded. Birds labeled as possible breeder, former breeder, undetermined, or hypothetical were not included. Probable breeder was included because additional explanations were given besides the species name noting that the bird had been sighted, but that there was only no evidence of breeding. No explanation was provided for the amphibians and reptiles list as well as the list for Rock Dunder Plants (Ref #20). Therefore, all species in these lists were included in the final comprehensive list. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (Ref #2): Observational This list was compiled by a student working with the conservation authority over the summer. Sources used were based on observational data. Appendix B: Guide to Metadata | Page 150 Atlas of the Breeding Bird of Ontario (Ref #3): Observational This list was accessed through the Atlas Data Summary database search engine. Summary statistics can be viewed based on various regions. The only region in the database available in the online engine that fell within the biosphere was Region 22 (Thousand Islands). This list was retrieved and included in the report. The dataset does not include observations of non-­‐breeding birds. As well, particular species at risk records were excluded from datasets so that exact coordinates of such species could remain confidential to prevent excessive disturbance. The data is based on observation. Ontario is divided into 10 km squares and 100 km blocks. The goal of the atlas is to provide adequate coverage of every 10 km square in southern Ontario. The province is further divided into 47 regions, each lead by a Regional Coordinator. Atlassers are then assigned responsibility to cover one or more particular squares and record observations. Natural Heritage Information Center (Ref #4): Observational The NHIC dataset is based on a provincial grid of 1 km squares and observations of species within each square. The retrieved dataset contains provincially tracked species, vegetation type and wildlife concentration area data for each square. The file provides a 1 km square identifier, scientific name, common name, Ontario sub-­‐
national rank maintained by NHIC, COSEWIC national status designation, official MNR status designation under the Endangered Species Act, last observation, and extirpation. As such, this data was used for both the comprehensive species list and as a key component for the species at risk distribution mapping analysis. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (Ref #5): Hypothetical This information was accessed through the Smithsonian database online, which allows for a search of mammals in a particular geographic location. However, data is based on distribution ranges of species rather than actual observationss. Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (Ref #6): Observational The Atlas is based on observations, which are each mapped and classified into three different types: specimen/photo/taped call, sightings after 1983 (since the creation of the Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas), or sightings before 1984 (before the creation of the Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas). Sightings are counted as visual reports or reports in the literature. Appendix B: Guide to Metadata | Page 151 Reichl, O.K.’s Species Checklist for the Thousand Islands (Ref #7): Hypothetical and Observational Upon contacting the St. Lawrence Islands National Park, we were directed to Reichl’s species list online and were told it provided a good representation of species in the national park. Older taxonomic naming conventions were used, which made it difficult to match up information from this list to our current dataset. This may have resulted in duplicates in species, as it is difficult to detect duplicates when several common names and Latin names exist for various species. The list was compiled based on theoretical range, although the author denotes when a species has been observed. Kingston Field Naturalists (Ref #8-­‐10, 12, 18): Observational Methodology: Each year the Kingston Field Naturalists send a team of volunteers to a specific location to gather as much species information as possible within 24 hours, as part of their BioBlitz program. Ref #12 was accessed online while the remainder was accessed as hard copies at the Queen’s Library. Charleston Lake Provincial Park (Ref #11): Undetermined Information about methodology was not provided. Frontenac Provincial Park (Ref #13): Observational The list was compiled by the Friends of Frontenac Park in partnership with The Ministry of Natural Resources, Kingston Field Naturalists, Queen’s University, and Ontario Herpetological Society. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (Ref #14-­‐17, 19): Observational and Undetermined Ref #14 is based on observational data in Meisel Woods Property, conducted by Mr. and Mrs. Meisel themselves in 1968. As for the other species lists obtained from the conservation authority, it is unclear whether they were based on observational or theoretical data. Appendix B: Guide to Metadata | Page 152