Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 186, Issue 4, pp 2505–2534 | Cite as

Monitoring an ecosystem at risk: What is the degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies?

  • Laura Roch
  • Jochen A. G. JaegerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Increasing fragmentation of grassland habitats by human activities is a major threat to biodiversity and landscape quality. Monitoring their degree of fragmentation has been identified as an urgent need. This study quantifies for the first time the current degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies using four fragmentation geometries (FGs) of increasing specificity (i.e. more restrictive grassland classification) and five types of reporting units (7 ecoregions, 50 census divisions, 1,166 municipalities, 17 sub-basins, and 108 watersheds). We evaluated the suitability of 11 datasets based on 8 suitability criteria and applied the effective mesh size (m eff) method to quantify fragmentation. We recommend the combination of the Crop Inventory Mapping of the Prairies and the CanVec datasets as the most suitable for monitoring grassland fragmentation. The grassland area remaining amounts to 87,570.45 km2 in FG4 (strict grassland definition) and 183,242.042 km2 in FG1 (broad grassland definition), out of 461,503.97 km2 (entire Prairie Ecozone area). The very low values of m eff of 14.23 km2 in FG4 and 25.44 km2 in FG1 indicate an extremely high level of grassland fragmentation. The m eff method is supported in this study as highly suitable and recommended for long-term monitoring of grasslands in the Canadian Prairies; it can help set measurable targets and/or limits for regions to guide management efforts and as a tool for performance review of protection efforts, for increasing awareness, and for guiding efforts to minimize grassland fragmentation. This approach can also be applied in other parts of the world and to other ecosystems.

Keywords

Effective mesh size Ecological indicators Grassland conservation Landscape fragmentation Fragmentation per se Protected areas Prairie ecozone Roads Urban sprawl 

Abbreviations used

CBI

City Biodiversity Index

FG

Fragmentation geometry

CESI

Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators

FSDS

Federal Sustainable Development Strategy

meff

Effective mesh size

seff

Effective mesh density

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

SpATS

Spatial and Temporal Variation in Nesting Success of Prairie Ducks Study

CUT procedure

Cutting-out procedure

CBC procedure

Cross-boundary connections procedure

CD

Census division

WS

Watershed

CARTS

Conservation Areas Reporting and Tracking System

CCEA

Canadian Council on Ecological Areas

RAN

Representative Areas Network

ESM

Electronic supplementary material

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following people who have provided valuable information and data: Mickey Currie (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development), ZuZu (Fawziah) Gadallah (Environment Canada), Scott Mitchell (Carleton University, Ottawa), John Riley (Nature Conservancy of Canada), Susan Witherly (Ducks Unlimited), Patrick Rollin (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Alexis Dorais (Univ. de Montréal) and David Beauchesne (Concordia Univ. Montréal). We also thank everyone who replied to our inquiries about available datasets, two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, and Environment Canada for financial support.

Supplementary material

10661_2013_3557_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4.8 mb)
ESM 1 PDF 4.76 MB

References

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) (2009). Metadata—crop inventory mapping of the Prairies. Earth Observation Unit of the Agri-Environment Services Branch (AESB). [XML Document].Google Scholar
  2. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). (2011). Forest & vegetation inventories. http://www.srd.alberta.ca/MapsPhotosPublications/Maps/ResourceDataProductcatalogue/ForestVegetationInventories.aspx. Accessed 15 Sept 2011
  3. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) (2010). Grassland vegetation inventory (GVI) Specifications, 5th edition. pp. 90 [PDF].Google Scholar
  4. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) (2004). Metadata—native prairie vegetation inventory (extended) Arc/Info Coverage. pp. 3.Google Scholar
  5. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (2001).Native Prairie vegetation inventory for the prairie region—terms of reference. pp. 5.Google Scholar
  6. Asgary, A. (2012). Measuring the connectivity of natural areas in the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) using the effective mesh size (meff). Unpublished Honour’s Thesis (p. 90). Canada: Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University Montréal.Google Scholar
  7. Bertiller, R., Schwick, C., & Jaeger, J. (2007). Degree of landscape fragmentation in Switzerland: Quantitative analysis 1885–2002 and implications for traffic planning and regional planning. Project report (in German). FEDRO report No 1175 (Swiss Federal Roads Authority), Berne, pp. 229.Google Scholar
  8. Bicheron, P., Defourny, P., Brockmann, C., Schouten, L., Vancutsem, C., & Huc, M., et al. (2008). GLOBCOVER—products description and validation report. Distributed by ESA. pp. 47 [PDF].Google Scholar
  9. Bontemps, S., Defourney, P., & Van Bogaert, E. (2009). GLOBCOVER 2009—product description manual. Distributed by ESA. pp. 17 [PDF].Google Scholar
  10. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA). (2010). Conservation areas reporting and tracking system (CARTS). http://www.ccea.org/en_carts.html.
  11. CBI User Manual. (2011/12). User’s manual for the City Biodiversity Index. 13 October 2011/updated on 18 April 2012. 25 pp. http://www.cbd.int/authorities/gettinginvolved/cbi.shtml.
  12. CEC and TNC. (2005). North American Central grasslands priority conservation areas: technical report and documentation. In J.W. Karl and J. Hoth (Eds.), Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation and The Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
  13. Centre for Topographic Information, Earth Sciences Sector and Natural Resources Canada. (2009). Land cover, circa 2000-vector: Feature catalogue, edition 1.0. Geobase [PDF]. http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/landcover/csc2000v/description.html.
  14. Chan, L., & Djoghlaf, A. (2009). Invitation to help compile an index of biodiversity in cities. Nature, 460, 33. doi: 10.1038/460033a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). (2010). Land cover 2005. http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=2819.
  16. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). (2010). Canadian wildlife species at risk. Government of Canada. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm.
  17. Data Basin. (2010). Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) generalized land cover—Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada. http://app.databasin.org/app/pages/datasetPage.jsp?id=f0cdd92d7f5145d19467d8e999ab1b01#tabId=overviewTab.
  18. Data Basin. (2010). Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) generalized land cover—Alberta and British Columbia, Canada. http://databasin.org/datasets/75d25a4836274de08848ac762333887f.
  19. Deslauriers, M. (2013). Measuring the connectivity of the greenway network in Southwest Montreal: Scenarios for enhancing the wellbeing of biodiversity and humans. Unpublished Honour’s thesis (p. 84). Canada: Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University Montréal.Google Scholar
  20. Digital Environmental. (2008). Report author Carmen Finnigan. Classification of Agricultural Lands in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Peace Region of British Columbia. pp. 41 [PDF].Google Scholar
  21. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC). (2011). Spatial and temporal variation in nest success of prairie ducks (SpATS) Study. http://www.ducks.ca/our-science/our-research/spats/.
  22. Dullinger, S., Essl, F., Rabitsch, W., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., et al. (2013). Europe’s other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of future extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(18), 7342–7734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EEA & FOEN (European Environment Agency & Swiss Federal Office for the Environment). (2011). Landscape fragmentation in Europe. Joint EEA-FOEN report. Authors: J.A.G. Jaeger, T. Soukup, L.F. Madriñán, C. Schwick, F. Kienast. EEA Report No 2/2011, ISSN 1725–9177, ISBN 978-92-9213-215-6, DOI: 10.2800/78322, Order ID: THAL-11-002-EN-C. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. pp. 87. Available in printed form and as PDF. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe/.
  24. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). (2007). National strategy on biological diversity (p. 178). BMU: Bonn.Google Scholar
  25. Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada. (2010). Canadian biodiversity: ecosystem status and trends 2010. Ottawa: Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, vi+ pp. 142.Google Scholar
  26. Findlay, C. S., & Bourdages, J. (2000). Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology, 14, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions (p. 495). Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Forrest, S. C., Strand, H., Haskins, W. H., Freese, C., Proctor, J., & Dinerstein, E. (2004). Ocean of grass: A conservation assessment for the northern great plains. Northern Plains Conservation Network and Northern Great Plains Ecoregion. Bozeman: World Wildlife Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Gauthier, A. D., & Wiken, B. (2003). Monitoring the conservation of grassland habitats, Prairie Ecozone, Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88, 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Girvetz, E. H., Jaeger, J. A. G., & Thorne, J. H. (2007). Comment on “Road less space of the conterminous United States”. Science, 318(5854), 1240b. doi: 10.1126/science.1145349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Girvetz, E. H., Thorne, J. H., Berry, A. M., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2008). Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: a statewide multi-scale case study from California, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 205–218. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Centre for Topographic Information. (2010). CanVec, Canada. Geogratis. http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canvec/.
  33. Gustafson, E. J. (1998). Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems, 1, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helm, A., Hanski, I., & Pärtel, M. (2006). Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology Letters, 9, 72–77.Google Scholar
  35. Henwood, D. W. (2010). Toward a strategy for the conservation and protection of the world’s temperate grasslands. Great Plains Research, 20, 121–134.Google Scholar
  36. Institute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research (IWWR), Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC). (2011). SpATS digitizing instructions (2008). Digitizing manual containing the methods, rules, and procedures followed to create SPATS_COVER. Unpublished Material. 123 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Jaeger, J. A. G. (2000). Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 15(2), 115–130.Google Scholar
  38. Jaeger, J. A. G. (2002). Landscape fragmentation—a transdisciplinary study according to the concept of environmental threat (in German: Landschaftszerschneidung—Eine transdisziplinäre Studie gemäß dem Konzept der Umweltgefährdung) (p. 447). Stuttgart: Eugen Ulmer.Google Scholar
  39. Jaeger, J. A. G., Fahrig, L., & Ewald, K. (2006). Does the configuration of road networks influence the degree to which roads affect wildlife populations? In C. L. Irwin, P. Garrett, & K. P. McDermott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET). Centre for transportation and the environment (pp. 151–163). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  40. Jaeger, J. A. G. (2007). Effects of the configuration of road networks on landscape connectivity. In C. L. Irwin, D. Nelson, & K. P. McDermott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET). Centre for transportation and the environment (pp. 267–280). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  41. Jaeger, J. A. G., Bertiller, R. & Schwick, C. (2007). Degree of landscape fragmentation in Switzerland—quantitative analysis 1885–2002 and implications for traffic planning and regional planning—condensed version, order no 868–0200, Bundesamt für Statistik, Neuchâtel, pp. 36. Also available in French (order no 867–0200) or German (order no 866–0200) (http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/00864/index.html?lang=en).
  42. Jaeger, J. A. G., Bertiller, R., Schwick, C., Müller, K., Steinmeier, C., Ewald, K. C., et al. (2008). Implementing landscape fragmentation as an indicator in the Swiss Monitoring System of Sustainable Development (MONET). Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 737–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemon, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., et al. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(9), 871–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuussaari, M., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Krauss, J., Lindborg, R., et al. (2009). Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(10), 564–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leitão, A. B., Miller, J., Ahern, J., & McGarigal, K. (2006). Measuring landscapes: a planner’s handbook (p. 245). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  46. Li, H., & Wu, J. (2004). Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology, 19, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindborg, R., & Eriksson, O. (2004). Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology, 85(7), 1840–1845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McRae, B. H., & Beier, P. (2007). Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 19885–19890.Google Scholar
  49. Merola-Zwartjes, M. (2004). Biodiversity, functional processes, and the ecological consequences of fragmentation in Southwestern Grasslands. In: Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the Southwestern United States (pp. 49–85). Albuquerque: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Google Scholar
  50. Moser, B., Jaeger, J. A. G., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., & Eiselt, B. (2007). Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landscape Ecology, 22(3), 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nasen, C. L., Noble, F. B., & Johnstone, F. J. (2011). Environmental effects of oil and gas lease sites in a grassland ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS). (2010). Crop Condition Assessment Program (CCAP). Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, Spatial Analysis and Geomatics Applications (SAGA). Geoconnections Discovery Portal. http://geodiscover.cgdi.ca/wes/CSWSearchClient/OWSResults/DisplayFullMetadata.jsp?id=830A6B5E-01FD-011B-E83E-199DD26F2075&recordLocale=en_US.
  53. Natural Resources Canada. (2011). CanVec: Data product specifications—edition 1.2. [PDF]. http://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/canvec/doc/.
  54. Natural Resources Canada. (2010). The state of Canada’s ecosystems in maps. http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/23f6ee12-67d4-537a-8861-aec4c6498185.htm
  55. Parks Canada. (2009). Grasslands National Park of Canada and the prairie grasslands. Government of Canada. http://www/pc.gc.ca/nature/eep-sar/itm4/eep-sar4b/1.aspx
  56. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) & Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). (2008). PFRA watershed project—environment Canada sub-basins. Metadata.Google Scholar
  57. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) & Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). (2008). PFRA Watershed Project—Environment Canada 4-character sub-basins. http://waterandenvironmentalhub.ca/catalogue/details/a7ec12ea-b2ed-11e0-a5fc-12313b015271/pfra-(prairie-farm-rehabilitation-administration)-environment-canada-4character-subbasins.
  58. Prairie Conservation Forum (PCF). (2000). Native prairie vegetation baseline inventory. http://www.albertapcf.org/background.html. Accessed 15 Sept 2011
  59. Prairie Conservation Forum (2011) Alberta Prairie Conservation Action Plan: 2011–2015. Prairie Conservation Forum, Lethbridge, Alberta, p 28Google Scholar
  60. Riley, J. L., Green, S. E., & Brodribb, K. E. (2007). A conservation blueprint for Canada’s prairies and parklands (p. 228). Toronto: Nature Conservancy of Canada.Google Scholar
  61. Robinson, C., Duinker, P. N., & Beazley, K. F. (2010). A conceptual framework for understanding, assessing, and mitigating ecological effects of forest roads. Environmental Reviews, 18, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Samson, B. F., Knopf, L. F., & Ostlie, R. W. (2004). Great plains ecosystem: past, present and future. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Samson, F. B., & Knopf, F. L. (Eds.). (1996). Prairie conservation: Preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  64. Samson, F. B., & Knopf, F. L. (1994). Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience, 44, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saskatchewan Environment (2005). Saskatchewan representative areas network (RAN) progress report 2005. [PDF]. http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=f6946bd6-174f-437f-82b9-14bbbee9db8d
  66. Schumacher, U., & Walz, U. (2000). Landschaftszerschneidung durch Infrastrukturtrassen. In C. von Becker & H. Job (Eds.), Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig (Hrsg.): Nationalatlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band 10: Freizeit und Tourismus (pp. 132–135). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer.Google Scholar
  67. Schupp, D. (2005). Umweltindikator Landschaftszerschneidung—Ein zentrales Element zur Verknüpfung von Wissenschaft und Politik. GAIA, 14(2), 101–106.Google Scholar
  68. Species at Risk Public Registry (SARA) (2010). Government of Canada. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/search/default_e.cfm.
  69. State Institute for Environment, Measurements and Nature Conservation Baden-Württemberg (2006). Umweltdaten 2006 Baden-Württemberg, Landesanstalt für Umwelt, Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg (LUBW). Mannheim: Karlsruhe JVA. ISBN 3-88251-306–3Google Scholar
  70. Sustainable Development Office and Environment Canada. (2010). Planning for a sustainable future: A federal sustainable development strategy for Canada. ISBN: 978-1-100-16796-1.Google Scholar
  71. Tasser, E., Sternbach, E., & Tappeiner, U. (2008). Biodiversity indicators for sustainability monitoring at municipality level: an example of implementation in an alpine region. Ecological Indicators, 8, 204–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., & Merriam, G. (1993). Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68(3), 571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L., & Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371, 65–66. doi: 10.1038/371065a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tischendorf, L., & Fahrig, L. (2000). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, 90, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vanderkam, R. (2010). Conservation areas reporting and tracking system procedures manual and database schema—implementation version. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas.Google Scholar
  76. White, R., Murray, S., & Rohweder, M. (2000). Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Grassland ecosystems. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography, Planning and EnvironmentConcordia University MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations