Forests vs trees vs...nothing?

 This past week, September 19-25, was National Forest Week. There is no question that forests are important as part of the Canadian landscape. But to travel through most of Chatham-Kent (CK), one would not recognize forests as being important at all. CK has about the lowest amount of forest cover of any municipality in Ontario, at about 3-4%, and that is being generous. Some people consider any tree cover, such as recent plantations and hedgerows as legitimate forest, but that is really stretching it. Even much of the real forest cover that still exists in CK is not in great condition, as water tables have been altered, they have been influenced by agricultural chemicals, there has been the arrival of invasive species, almost every woodland has undergone some logging, some of it heavy, etc.

A good quality forest has a tremendous positive impact on the local, and even more distant, environment. It stores water, preventing flooding and keeps harmful chemicals out of things like the Thames River and water bodies downstream, all of which are sources of drinking water for parts of the human population, not to mention the better quality water that the natural wildlife requires.

Residents of CK and adjacent municipalities might have vivid memories of the most recent serious flooding which took place in February, 2018. These photos were taken from the general down town part of Chatham.

Forests reduce soil erosion, with the top layer being most important for crop production and thus reducing the extra costs of adding artificial fertilizers, part of which will wash away into the downstream areas thus negatively affecting water quality. Soil erosion is a serious problem. Here is an example of severe erosion which happens all too often: a tilled field, with a bit of snow on top and then covered with wind-blown soil from a nearby field.

Forests are also important for storing significant amounts of carbon, which helps alleviate increased temperatures associated with climate change.

The lack of forests obviously has a huge impact on our native wildlife. Southwestern Ontario has arguably the greatest biodiversity of native flora and fauna in Canada, even in its present state. But many of those species are rapidly dwindling. The greatest number of species at risk occur here in the southwest, in part because there are relatively few places for them to occupy.

In recent years, there has been a lot of effort by local people in CK to try and get a Forest Conservation By-law in place, to protect the remaining woodlands and prevent scenes like this.

 But it has been met with lots of opposition by a few landowners who don't want anyone to influence what they can do with the woodlands on their land. Some landowners are really good stewards of the natural resources they have, and credit should be given for their efforts and foresight. However the ones most vocally against such a by-law are apparently more interested in short-term profits than the long-term benefits of woodlands. Admittedly if the local council had put a by-law in place decades ago, like the majority of other southern Ontario municipalities, there would be more woodlands in CK and so the responsibility would not fall on those landowners who still have some.

I'm not against agriculture. I grew up on a farm in CK, and I get it. And I am not suggesting that landowners should bear the brunt of maintaining woodlands totally. If it is good for the community, then the community should ante up support to relieve any financial pressure on the landowners. One of the reasons that remnant forest are even more valuable nowadays is because so many landowners of yesteryear got the jump on the action, removing many hectares of forest since settlement.

There are some who have taken it upon themselves to plant trees, either as a hedgerow or even taken out some perhaps less productive farm land and put in a plantation. While these are useful, they are very small steps towards maintaining quality woodlands.

One must consider the huge differences between planting say, 5 acres of trees versus retaining a 5 acre woodland. There really is no comparison, and won't be for decades, even centuries. It is even hard to know where to start when considering the differences. But consider the following.

A good quality forest will have:

• high diversity of tree and shrub species
  

• impressive displays of spring wildflowers

 

Long-spurred Violet

Large Yellow Lady's-slipper

White Baneberry

• interior forest, meaning they will have good forest habitat a minimum of 100 metres from any edge. Some knowledgeable bird specialists maintain the minimum distance should be 200 metres. There are forest interior bird species that will not nest in any forested habitat that doesn't have interior forest, and also there are edge species of birds such as Brown-headed Cowbirds, which lay their eggs in other species' nests and out-compete the other nestlings. More on this may be the topic of another blog.

Acadian Flycatcher, an Endangered Species

American Redstart, an interior species

Scarlet Tanager, primarily an interior species

• large trees interspersed with younger trees.

• natural variation in the topography, resulting in parts of the woodland being upland and a bit drier, and other parts being a bit lower resulting in lowland forest habitat. This increases the diversity of the forest and creates water retention areas and habitat for other species such as reptiles and amphibians.
  

Blue-spotted Salamander

• fallen trees. Decomposing trees laying on the forest floor for a decade or more are known to host many more species of flora and fauna than a healthy, standing tree.

• fallen trees where their roots have been ripped up, leaving a shallow depression in the soil where the roots once were. These shallow depressions serve as important small habitats for things like amphibians and insects to survive. They also hold water for nearby plants to tap in to when they need it.

Eastern Grey Treefrog

• a good diversity of fern species. Ferns seldom grow in a poor quality forest, and especially not in plantations.
  

• standing dead trees, important for numerous insects which are critical in the decomposition process, and are in turn important for woodpeckers as a food source. Such trees in the earlier stages of death and decomposition are also good for nesting cavities for species such as woodpeckers, and other birds such as Prothonotary Warblers and Great Crested Flycatchers which may nest in these cavities when the woodpeckers are finished with them, or owls that use them for roosting in.

Pileated Woodpecker

 

•  a good diversity of fungus. Most people don't pay much attention to fungus, unless they are really vivid and colourful, but any fungus you see above ground is usually short-lived. The fungus you see above ground, or growing on a fallen log, is just the 'fruit' of the rest of this plant. Most of the fungus is below ground, greatly involved in the decomposition of whatever it is growing on, recycling the nutrients into small enough elements so that other living things can use them. The below part of the fungus is made up of tiny threads called mycorrhizae, which are not only connected to dead plant material as they decompose it, but also to many of the living plants such as trees, and are a tremendous source of food for living plants. Without fungus, most trees, shrubs and wildflowers would have a much more difficult time to even survive, let alone thrive.

Chicken-of-the-woods

Turkey-tail

Overall, the greater diversity of flora and fauna there is in a woodlot, the more stable it is, and will be more able to withstand the difficulties it must face over the years, whether it be an invasive species infestation or extreme weather conditions.

 This certainly has been borne out with examples of plantation planting in CK and elsewhere. In the last century or so, there have been many plantations established in southern Ontario. Most were planted as conifers, such as spruce or pine, especially if they were on the more sterile and well drained sandy soils. The spruces used were not naturally occurring in southwestern Ontario, but were a good start in some ways. The spruces were used as a 'cover crop' essentially until native hardwood species might arrive and become established many decades later, if there was a naturally occurring source of seed nearby. In the 1980s, local forestry staff thought that skipping that 'cover crop' stage and directly planting native hardwoods, such as ash trees, would speed up the process. It was a great idea and initially had some success. However most readers will know the longer term outcome. The non-native Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) arrived about two decades ago, and quickly killed most ash trees in southwestern Ontario. It has now reached more northerly and easterly parts of the province.

Here is a recent photo of an ash plantation that was established in about 1989. While parts of it are still alive, with ash trees that suckered after the main stems were killed by the EAB, and nearby tree species started to come in, it is anything but a good looking plantation and likely never will be, assuming it lasts for another century or more. I know of other ash plantations planted at the same time which suffered heavy damage by the borer and were completely removed and turned back into an agricultural crop on the poor quality soils.

Here is an example of another plantation effort in CK also established in the 1980s, this time of Black Walnut.  Clearly they are still alive, and haven't been affected by an invasive insect such as the Emerald Ash Borer. Maybe this plantation will survive. Some people would consider this as part of the 3-4% forest cover in CK, and from an aerial view, it does sort of qualify. But as a good quality functioning forest? Not even close!

The trees are fairly uniform in size due to their similar age. The diversity is non-existent, as it is a single species planting, although it is native. What is really telling is what is growing under the tree canopy. It is primarily, if not entirely, made up of non-native species, with a lot of grasses. While some of the visible wildflowers may be pretty, they are Purple Coneflower, a tallgrass prairie species not native to Ontario. And herein lies the problem. Precipitation is taken in primarily via the roots of the trees. Grasses create a dense sod, and intercept most of the precipitation before it gets to the tree's roots. depriving the trees of needed moisture in which to thrive. Although the trees themselves are around 35 or more years old, most of the trunks are spindly for their age. They have not grown anywhere close to their potential given the full sun and no competition from other tree species. It will take many decades, even centuries, if ever, for this plantation and others like it, to even begin to look and function as a forest. And with the current high value placed on Black Walnut for the furniture industry, chances are it will be cut down in several decades, assuming the trees will get to merchantable size.

One of the most difficult things for a plantation type forest to overcome is the lack of critical mycorrhizae in the soil, a very important but fundamentally necessary component of productive soil as described above. Years of agricultural disturbance, from annual tilling, compaction of soil due to heavy equipment as well as the addition of chemicals, whether they be fertilizers or for weed control, have destroyed the mycorrhizae.

 The only responsible solution is, for starters, to protect and retain the limited forest habitat still surviving in Chatham-Kent. Plantations adjacent to these forests will have a much better chance at becoming functional decades before a stand-alone plantation, as the seeds from the functioning forest will gradually enter the plantation. Will the current elected officials decide on a Forest Conservation By-law that is in the best interest of all citizens as well as the numerous species of flora and fauna that are struggling to survive in these habitats? Or will they capitulate to a small number of individual landowners in opposition to such common sense, as so many of their predecessors have done in the past? Only time will tell.

 

 

 

 If you want to subscribe, or unsubscribe, to Nature Nuggets, email me at prairietramper@gmail.com

 

The Highs and Lows of a Sandspit

I had considered using the title "The Rise and Fall of the Great Lakes" for this blog post, as it was the title of an excellent film that we showed to thousands of kids and adults while I was working at Rondeau. In a very humorous way, it showed how ice ages and time affected what we know about what changes the Great Lakes experienced, and why they are like they are today. If you want to see it, check it out at this link. I watched it again, and can still remember the music, the script, and especially the kids laughter for this production. It was clearly a crowd pleaser! On a much, much smaller scale of time, a similar story has been unfolding at Rondeau for many years.
 
The existence of Rondeau Provincial Park is due to the water currents of Lake Erie. And that has its highs and lows, both literally and figuratively. It is to be expected as the park is a dynamic sandspit, with parts of it certainly changing seasonally, if not daily. A cross-section of the park clearly shows alternating ridges, formed during periods of high water level, and sloughs, formed during periods of lower water levels. As for the shoreline, that can change very quickly.

Anyone who has been to Rondeau in the last couple of years especially will have images of water-logged and closed trails, a closed campground, and cottages at least partly surrounded by water. We sometimes think the worst, only because our memories may be short. In reality, these types of things have gone on repeatedly to one extent or another.

I was recently rummaging through some slides I took of Rondeau back about 35 years ago, in the mid 1980s. I thought I would scan and share them to put some of Rondeau's relatively recent history into perspective, especially since these last couple of years have had major challenges to anyone living on the waterfront.

This first photo shows the Chatham-Kent Road 15 as it approaches Rondeau. It was taken in April of 1985. The Summer Place campground is just out of view to the right. Note that just before the bridge the water is coming over the road. Just beyond the bridge, on both sides of the road, it is completely open. There is no sign of any vegetation, unlike what it has looked like for the past couple of decades or more. I remember Keith McLean, former owner of what is now the Keith McLean Conservation Lands, telling me that back in the 1930s the land was so dry on the left hand side of that road, he was able to farm it.

My field notes of April 6: ....very windy, with southwest winds to 90 km/hr......highway  at the causeway is covered with water and closed in the morning due to water and debris. North end of the marsh road completely under water; base of the main dock is in danger of being washed away.

 This next photo shows the part of the KMCL immediately across the little bridge that crossed the creek on his property. It was taken in about 1995 or 96. The land had been dry for several years, and Keith was interested in creating wildlife habitat, so he had this area planted into tallgrass prairie. The photo was taken from a raised front-end loader of his tractor.

 In this next photo, taken in June, 2019, from that little bridge I mentioned above, Keith would have been standing about where the tongue of vegetation sticks out into the several acres of the relatively recently formed lake. The tallgrass prairie has been completely underwater for at least a couple of years, much to the delight of numerous ducks, geese, herons, shorebirds etc.

Moving into the park shows a similar theme. These next two photos show the Yacht Club in April 1985. The building is completely surrounded by water, and the water comes almost to the road as the wind-blown water from Rondeau Bay takes over.

 I took this next photo just a few days ago. The building doesn't look much different, but it has had some improvements to minimize future flooding. With the high water this past spring, it wasn't quite as bad as what the 1985 photos show, but even now the lawn is still quite soggy from the high water table and some flooding earlier in the season.

Moving a bit farther south, is the last cottage on the bay side, adjacent to the Marsh Trail. Again, these first two photos were taken in April of 1985. There are still some trees on the far side of the Marsh Trail, but the trail itself is barely visible. It is interesting to note that in the second photo, you can see a scraggly remnant of a tree line that extended perpendicularly from the trail. It extended outwards for almost 100 metres, as prior to the early 1970s, the cattail vegetation also extended out that far. For quite a few years now, the tree line and all of the cattail marsh has been destroyed by high water, wave action and ice.

 Here is a photo of the same cottage taken just a few days ago. The cottage lot, and the one beside it, was under water for a good part of the first half of 2019, and the lawn was never cut. It is still very soggy.

The Marsh Road is in really rough shape, and on many days one cannot traverse this closed trail without crossing through at least some water.

Marsh Road, 2019

 These next two photos show some areas of the cottage community adjacent to Rondeau Bay, the first one being on some slightly higher ground and only covered by sand.

 The next one is, appropriately between Water Street and Rondeau Bay. If you look closely (click on the image for a larger view), you can see a small patch of white through the trees slightly to the right of centre. That is the Yacht Club. You may be able to see that the base of the old pier is completely separated from the land. It might be more easily seen in the first photo of the Yacht Club, above.

Flooding was apparent in other areas of the park, although in a different way than what the park experienced in the last couple of years. In 1985, the flooding only lasted for a few weeks, whereas in the last couple of years, it lasted for a few months. In the last couple of years, the flooding was exacerbated by heavy rainfall in the spring which, combined with a very high water table, kept things wet, and resulted in the closed campground for awhile.

Moving to the southern end of the park, it was the same old story, although structures weren't affected this time, as they had been affected as a result of major flooding of 1972-74. This next photo shows the rollers coming in from the lake, washing over the south beach. It was taken in April 1985, from the south end of the Marsh Road.

My field notes of April 10: ....south beach is washed over for about 350-400 metres, with white caps on the marsh side. The Marsh Road is covered with water in numerous places, sometimes for 100 metres at a time.

 The next two were taken from the south beach, also in 1985.

 The next shows the south beach taken this past December of 2019. I provided a few shots comparing the south beach of just 5 years ago in a previous blog, which you can see here.

 The following photo, taken in 1985, shows the very southern east/west part of the South Point Trail, which prior to the mid-1970s was a paved road. Note how open it is on the left hand side of the road which is under water. There used to be a fairly sizable parking lot, with room for probably at least 50 cars since it was a popular stopping point for visitors to see the lake. There was also a huge, old style picnic shelter, which disappeared in the early 1970s due to high water and storm damage.

 This next photo was taken a few days ago, from much the same vantage point as the previous one. The road is still visible, although the eastern part where I am standing is covered with 20cm or so of sand. Note also that the former parking lot on the left hand side is completely overgrown with shrubbery and small trees. The little bit of it that remains is difficult to walk through.

 Even just a few days ago, the western part of the trail still had several centimetres of water on it.

 The next one shows the same direction as the previous three photos, taken from the shoreline.

 A different perspective, showing the same road, but from the west end, looking toward the vantage point where the previous 4 photos were taken. It was taken in April 2018, showing how much water was over the trail right up to the eastern end where the trail is covered with 20 cm or more of sand.

 Due to the regular erosion of the old South Point Trail where the road was washed away and it was difficult to keep it as a trail, a boardwalk was put a short distance inland so hikers, bikers, and strollers would have an easier time of getting from one side to the other.

It was a nice idea, but relatively short-lived. In only a few years, this boardwalk was completely gone, leaving hikers with the only option of getting from one side to the other via the constantly changing beach. And the changes continue, as now the South Point Trail has officially been separated into South Point Trail East and South Point Trail West.

What will the next 35 years bring?