Successful Re-Establishment of a Native Savannah Flora and Fauna on the Site of a Former Pine Plantation at Constance Bay, Ottawa, Ontario

Successful Re-establishment of a Native Savannah Flora and Fauna on the Site of a Former Pine Plantation at Constance Bay, Ottawa, Ontario

P. M. C ATLING AND B. K OSTIUK

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environmental Health, Biodiversity, Saunders Building, Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 Canada; e-mail: [email protected]

Catling, P. M., and B. Kostiuk. 2010. Successful re-establishment of a native savannah flora and fauna on the site of a former pine plantation at Constance Bay, Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 124(2): 169 –178. To determine the extent of successful restoration of native savanna vegetation at The Sandhills, an unusual and biodiversity- rich habitat in the Ottawa Valley, we gathered information from quadrats along transects so as to compare a restored clear - ing with the surrounding plantation. We provide an indication of success with respect to amount of effort and provide an example of some considerations and procedures for estimating success. With a minimum effort of tree cutting and bulldoz - ing, removal of pine duff and litter, that is estimated to have required five people over a period of less than two weeks, a hectare was successfully restored to pre-settlement savannah vegetation. Apart from a limited seeding effort following the removal of planted trees, the re-establishment of native vegetation proceeded naturally, and it was likely aided by dispersal of seed from adjacent remnant vegetation along paths and firebreaks in the vicinity. Biodiversity, based on number of species and various indices, was substantially greater in the restored clearing than in the adjacent Red Pine platation. The semi-open Jack Pine plantation accommodated species of both shaded and open habitats and diversity approached that of the clearing. However, some species such as blueberry were in poor condition in the plantation, generally not producing flowers or fruit. In addition the non-dominant vegetation was much less of the cover. In the restored area there were more regionally rare species and much greater development of flowering herbaceous species and shrubs. Orthopteran insects, a useful indicator group of plant feeding species, had much higher diversity and abundance in the restored area. Savannah and natural sand barren that have been largely destroyed by plantation forestry can be restored successfully and inexpensively, and there is thus no reason why such restorations should not include large areas and be implemented widely. Among the tools for evaluating success are historical descriptions and various measures of biodiversity and vegetation condition. Key Words: savannah, restoration, pine plantation, tree planting, species at risk, threatened, Ottawa, Ontario.

The loss of natural habitat to conifer plantations has Michigan portion of the Great Lakes region, the once occurred around the world. Recognition of this prob - extensive Jack Pine barrens, have been mostly con - lem over the last several decades has led to removal of verted to managed Jack Pine plantations. These plan - plantations and restoration of original vegetation in tations are now being managed to create openings many areas. Some restoration projects have been exten - (Houseman and Anderson 2002) to restore the former sive such as the replacement of a 2000 ha Pinus radi - barrens habitat for the endangered Kirtland’s Warbler ata plantation with indigenous plant communities in (Dendroica kirtlandii ). Australia (Kasel and Meers 2004*) . In Ontario between 1950 and 1970, extensive areas In North America, savannahs and sand barrens are of open land, particularly dry, sandy, areas (including among the natural habitats often destroyed by devel - native savannahs), were planted with pines. These trees opment of conifer plantations. These habitats are also do well (especially with a head start) under dry condi - among the most imperilled of North American ecosys - tions. This action was a leftover from a period when tems (Noss et al. 1995). The problem is particularly conservation was often seen in the limited context of well known in the southeastern United States where, erosion control. It was before the International Biolog - prior to European settlement, extensive areas of species- ical Program (IBP) that focused attention on ecosys - rich Longleaf Pine ( Pinus palustris ) savannahs were tems, ecology and significant natural habitats. The idea maintained by naturally occurring, relatively frequent, of the plantations was to prevent wind erosion result - low intensity fires (Taggart 1990*). By the 1950s the ing from intensive and poor agricultural practices and suppression of fire, logging, conversion of the land - to increase productivity and value of idle land, often scape to agriculture and pine plantation forestry had referred to as “wasteland.” In 1971, Doug Clarke, for - reduced the ecosystem to scattered remnants amount - mer Chief of Wildlife Branch of the Ontario Depart - ing to less than 3% of the original area. Today the rem - ment of Lands and Forests (and one of the most forward nants of this formerly predominant ecosystem are the thinking biologists of the time), wrote of the unfortu- focus of major restoration efforts, many of which in- nate loss of the wildlife habitats (of Field, Grasshop - volve clearing of pine plantations (Gilliam and Pratt per and Henslow’s sparrows, etc.) to pine plantations 2006; Brudvig et al. 2009). In the northern lower throughout southern Ontatio. He correctly observed

169 170 THE CANADIAN FIELD -N ATURALIST Vol. 124

FIGURE 1. A clearing of the planted forest created in the late 1980s as part of an attempt to restore a portion of The Sandhills ecosystem. The line of transect 1 crosses the opening perpendicular to the line of vision in the centre of the photo. Looking southwest from the northeast corner. Photo by P. M. Catling, September . 2009. that “more wildlife species like it open, that edges and suggestions for restoration are few. Fewer still have openings are the places for wildlife, and the great wild- been the attempts at restoration, although they are on- life spectacles of the earth are on treeless, or nearly going and the t hinning and removal of plantations is treeless lands.” It is not always necessary to plant pines a part of these restorations as for example in the Rice to restore wasteland (e.g., Catling and King 2008) and Lake Plains area of southern Ontario (Ontario Ministry planting non-native pines has led to substantial losses of Natural Resources 2009*). Comprehensive evalua - of native biodiversity (e.g., Catling and Carbyn 2005). tions of the success of restoration of savannah from In some cases the “wastelands” of Ontario that were pine plantation in Ontario are non-existent, yet land - planted with pines were special places with large num - scape managers are in the position of making decisions bers of native species including many rarities. As a on the basis of costs and benefits and restoration of result of plantation forestry, they were largely reduced imperiled savannah ecosystems in Ontario is a high to monocultures of a single species of tree; species priority (Bakowsky and Riley 1994; Rodger 1998). diversity declined and some, or many, rare species The Constance Bay Sandhills, also known as Tor - were extirpated. The Constance Bay Sandhills on the bolton Forest (when the unique landscape could no Ottawa River provide one of hundreds of examples of longer be seen for the trees) is one of the few places in this largely unconscious depletion of natural resources Ontario where restoration has been attempted. Here we during the middle 20 th century (Catling et al. 2010). evaluate the results of that effort to provide a basis The Sandhills were, and to a degree still are, one of for future restoration of savannahs and sand barrens. the biodiversity gems in the Ottawa valley, that was Specifically we provide an indication of success with largely destroyed by conversion to a pine plantation. respect to the amount of effort and provide an example Now that the importance of protecting biodiversity of some considerations and procedures for estimating is more widely understood, complaints about the ear - success. lier misguided tree planting are frequent, but serious 2010 CATLING AND KOSTIUK : R E-ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE SAVANNAH FLORA 171

FIGURE 2. The Red Pine ( Pinus resinosa ) plantation on the north side of the clearing. Left showing the height and density of trees looking northeast from the centre of the clearing. Right showing the very sparse vascular plant cover in deep pine needle litter along transect 3 in the plantation. Photos by P. M. Catling, September 2009.

Methods required five people over a period of less than two The Study Area weeks. By 1991, many savannah plants had devel - The Constance Bay Sandhills are located on the oped in the sandy areas including many that had not south side of the Ottawa River in the western portion of been planted (D. Cuddy, personal. communication). the city of Ottawa at 45.49586°N, and -76.08684°W. The OMNR intended the restored area to be the first For a general discussion of the biodiversity and history step in an extensive restoration requested by profes - of the area see Catling et al. (2010) and for information sional biologists and local naturalists (Wilson 1984 ; on the flora see White (2004a, 2004 b*). The restora - Catling et al. 2010) but after the first steps in 1987– tion of The Sandhills was undertaken by the Ontario 1992, OMNR experienced a series of cutbacks and the Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). The restora - work ceased. Responsibility for management became tion area from which the trees were removed (subse - unclear but it appears to have belonged to the town - quently referred to as the clearing) is a little less than ship of Torbolton until it was turned over to the City of a hectare in extent. It is mostly flat or gently sloping Ottawa in 2000. Over the last few decades there have and lower than the surrounding land. The restoration been low intensity fires in parts of the clearing (regard - involved removal of all planted Red and Jack Pine trees ed by biologists visiting the site as having been ben- in the late 1980s from an area planted in the early eficial) that were evidently started by young people 1950s (approximately 40 years earlier). The duff was partying in the site (and/or possessing ecological not removed and the regeneration of savannah was knowledge). initially poor. In 1989 OMNR staff Don Cuddy and To evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration it is Kim Taylor supervised removal of the duff to expose necessary to determine the extent to which the restored the sandy soil. Seeds from plants in the firebreaks were area was dominated by native pre-plantation vegeta - planted in both bare sand and in areas of remaining tion. In 1941, prior to the conversion of the savannah duff. Records of these plantings were kept but subse - which dominated much of The Sandhills to a pine quently lost. The restoration work is estimated to have plantation, Porsild (1941) indicated that “on gently 172 THE CANADIAN FIELD -N ATURALIST Vol. 124

sloping ground and in level places Vaccinium pennsyl - vanicum (= angustifolium ), Gaylussacia baccata, Myri - ca asplenifolia, Ceanothus americanus, C. ovatus and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi form a dense cover.” Later in 1957, but still in advance of destruction, Breitung (1957) described The Sandhills as “treeless and prairie-like in aspect, covered with low shrubs. Of these the primary species are Vaccinium pensylvanicum (= angustifolium ), Myrica asplenifolia , Ceanothus ameri - canus, Prunus pumila var . cuneata (= susquehannae ), and Gaylussacia baccata. From these historical landscape descriptions a suc - cessful restoration would include the establishment of a self-sustaining lower elevation, level area domi - nated by a dense growth of the previously mentioned dominant shrub species. Success was also considered with respect to biodiversity measures applied to the vascular flora and an indicator group of insects. Data Collection In September 2009, 17 years after the restoration FIGURE 3. Aerial view of the opening showing the position of clearing was created, vegetation was sampled with 20 four transects. Reproduced from Google Earth Pro one m 2 quadrats, 3 m apart along four transects, each in 2009. 80 m long. Two of these transects were in the restora - tion clearing and two were in the adjacent plantation. The adjacent plantation samples included one plant - ed with Red Pine (north side), the other planted with mate of tree cover was also included. This cover esti - Jack Pine. Orthopteran insects (grasshoppers, crickets, mate corresponds to 1/2 of the surface area of a plant katydids) were sampled by sweeping vegetation with above a quadrat. Mean % frequency and mean % cov - a net and direct hand capture along the same four tran - er of species were compared between the restoration sects one m on either side of the transect line. The clearing and the adjacent plantation and within these Orthoptera survey was carried out during clear, sunny two sites. The numbers of orthopteroid insects were weather and 45 minutes was spent collecting along simply tallied for comparison. each transect line. This amount of time was sufficient The measures of biodiversity employed were: (1) to capture and record all Orthopteran insects along the total number of species and individuals for both plants transects. The timing of the Orthopteran survey was and orthopteroid insects (species richness) and for appropriate since most species are adult at this time and plants the frequency and cover of each species; (2) the some spring species that are only half grown nymphs number of regionally rare species for plants through are large enough to be identifiable. reference to the list of “distributionally significant” Most insects and some plants are represented by species developed by Brunton (2005*); (3) the recip - voucher specimens in the CNCI and DAO collections rocal of Simpson’s Index based on probability which of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada on the Central weights common and dominant species applied to both Experimental Farm in Ottawa. The names of orthop- plant cover and frequency data; and (4) Brillouin’s teroid insects correspond to those used in Vickery and Index which employs numbers of individuals or in this Kevan (1985) and Cantrall (1968). The names of plants case instances, (i.e ., frequency), and assumes no re- are taken largely from Kartesz and Meachum (1999). placement, applied only to frequency data. The com - putations were made using Ecological Methodology Data Analysis software (Krebs 2008*). See also Krebs (1999) for To determine the extent of successful restoration of details on these biodiversity measures. The Simpson’s native savanna vegetation at The Sandhills, the vegeta - and Brillouin’s indices both take heterogeneity into tion and orthopteran insect fauna of the two transects account. This includes consideration of the number of in the restored clearing was compared with that of two common species and the evenness of occurrence. The transects representing the surrounding plantation. reciprocal of Simpson’s Index approximates the num - For vascular plants the species presence was record - ber of equally common species required to generate ed in each quadrat. Cover for each species in each the heterogeneity observed in the sample. Biodiversi - quadrat was estimated as a percentage of the one m 2 ty that includes a large number of equally common ground surface covered by living material of that species is often perceived as more valuable than that species. It could exceed 100% due to overlap of exten- which includes a few dominants accompanied by a sive cover. There was no height restriction so an esti - large number of rare species. 2010 CATLING AND KOSTIUK : R E-ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE SAVANNAH FLORA 173 . . d ) n e q 4 a , c e e a % E r 3 u 5 5 – – – 5 – – – 5 0 – – – 5 5 – – – 5 5 5 0 – – – – 7 – – – – n ( F M d n 1 2 2 1 a n o i o r i s o t t i k t 4 n a n i t a r t a n e e 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 n b n l a v a 2 0 7 3 6 4 4 1 5 8 2 3 l a . l ...... g o e P P p 0 0 – – – 0 – – – 0 1 – – – 0 2 – – – 0 1 0 0 – – – – 2 – – – – % n c i s g M n % e i h d n T u . . ) o n r N q * a a r ( e s e – – – – – – – – – – 5 – – – 0 – – – 5 – – – – – – – – 0 – – – – % n u r o 1 1 s k o F M i n s t n i i i 3 r s a t e e d t 5 5 5 5 n r s n r 3 2 6 1 a . n . . . . a a l e a P – – – – – – – – 0 – – – – 1 – – – – – 0 – – – – – – 1 – – – – ) v P e n % 2 o a , c M 1 y ( b a e d r e a t . n a q n a – – – 5 – – – 5 5 – – – 5 5 – – – – – – – – 0 – 0 5 0 0 – 5 5 – c g e o i e 2 1 1 1 0 % r i n d t i 1 F M a r n r i S 2 a o e e t l r s 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 a e C r r 1 4 1 1 5 5 4 8 0 7 1 1 n . ) ...... e a d – – – 0 – – – * 0 1 – – – 0 0 – – – – – – – – 4 – 0 0 1 5 – 0 0 – v e % e 5 6 o r 0 c M a 0 e l 2 c n a o t e n . d n i u q a s r e - e n – – 5 – 5 – 0 – – – – 5 – – – 5 0 – – – – 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 – – 5 % r i B g 1 3 3 2 5 5 0 2 ( F M n s 1 i t s r c e 1 N a e i s e c l n e r n 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 a C e p a r 7 0 8 1 3 1 2 1 8 8 1 7 8 1 s v t ...... e % o – – 0 – 6 – 3 – – – – 0 – – – – 0 4 – – – – 7 0 1 5 4 1 0 – – 0 r e c M r 6 u a o r f f y l o l a h n c a o i e g n e i R s t . s a s d r a e y d r r d a r a G u * e * h t q b s s a e s 2 s e s g e a * O k l a r m r d o r a * a e d e e h G l e n G i ) S d n i ) S C e e 7 I o e t P d W ( s e t t 5 - k ’ t e 0 e 9 d c y w e n y n v s 2 t 1 r a r n s a d o r o l ( r r o u o n h e i e i R B m h o * g v S R t b r B , o s o n , d t l k s d n w s G e u e P c n o r e p t a s n t v a , i u e r e l S p i l r t s i o e r a h * B a p r w e t e S h o t t F t r C s r d l e B s P l S R a o a ) s e i u a - o l , w t l y e d e d r N n h p F i a u o d o y e i n n l c F e , l z r c w n F o L g a l a y r e s u r n S r n n r r h a , y d e i * i a y e o ) e n r . d n y r D c a e s v V P r a a 1 e r k F s B V o , G n - s e e t A r - * s e f c s t 4 . , a R e d h o e t i m d ) e S a a J o b m r w r 9 l a . r s e h n r u k c o r , e e B r e t a 1 n e i h r g i a B l y c a G - o - M k ( r l u G & r h - a b v u d c f ( w F e e b e t , t i i n e r P - r y g r r i o e ) n i o o c d W a o i n r e B p a l i l M - m e d n r p e F a i S l c r i R L a f i ( l p S v s m y n o u e a P s g d e m ) i d S l n h r m ) a ) u l r . r u H * u r i q - . e . i n n , b L h g e e e i u m s g T i i f y ) o p e e o s x a e n , L n - L v e o R y u S r S s s n . b g o h i p a P e ( a s t h d f R . g r - , v * w ’ u b e s c a R x n . l c y v a T a d t a a m , p d N s r l i l y k y u o a s h r . n g m e n l f ( n x s l a t e u % t s e n y b d c g e i u u l e a n t u e a s W M v b i r t s M s S H b e i a t l i u p e n o h h F , . ( l , o - e u r R d u u e r n r . r M a d t s u a L e v g t s y . M a . l g e , C b n u n r s . n a p B o e l f t . a k e a u l e r n r i ) n ) k e i l e a u C s r p e o r S . o g r d p a m l x a o ( t o m B n r p e n P A P m e E e o e e n e a ) i T s v L G s . s i , a . e A W L , ( u , m b d d ) . - f D g h t l . . P R B e ) ) s . i ) . c , , , t ” . L n . a . y . . n ) ) s p n W , e , L . h R a b d m e o ( y e L i L r I . m . a ( g s L e a L P k c l s L R t n ( u a o o n m m i g “ a ( a i a ( i e s i r L . n r o r c D u n i s ) p i r a l u u s s g t i a C c e M . L a l n e , h l r s l y e , a A r e o c c e G u u y D i i v s e e , a s o d f e B s i i y L u b t d l W . c i d l a s f T i o L e o ( - a b e i a o n n i t a s a a ) a s y a e l c m , M e n s L c d . a i c n . u a a d n c i n n n a u n m m a L u c w m . i o e ) R i n v i i t n x a ( a v e n a l P P t a a L e a u r a P r P a r S a , u i e ( ( d % g a c a e n c a d u c ( o . i c c e h d l , b a s i r t t s e D c v n t . a f c m a s a n o r a n n i v l i L F i l s i n i a o u m m m p i r i u o m m ( n m e m a o y a r p r g e p a l d l s n r r r u u t u r p d r i m s e r u u a o s h m s y l t i i m y p . y n a i e e s a e a l l c s n i r d A a s u i i c a m s e u s t l s a p h v m m a c a i i e e p ( M s i i r n r i e u h h s i s s n n r u u e e p a r c e r r d a h h . a i e i a i c c b i n h h m g a a l t t o o n i h h h a a a e i n e e a t t 1 s i i t s p t t t t g f n n e t u s o s a u n n r a e a n o t c h p e n n s e n p r o n n e a a p E t h a i h i x x x g e a a a l i s p a s n i l l u e l t a a o i t r n a a m L o c e e e c r t h y l i i n h h h g t e g c e e i i u n l r r r m l l s w e t u o i p y a B e e c c c c c p c a a e a a a e e r a e i i i o a y a a e a a c m m n n q r h s p p a e r r A p R T s S A A A A A A A P A C M M L L G H F H E F D C D D D D D C C C C C 174 THE CANADIAN FIELD -N ATURALIST Vol. 124 . n q a e e a % E r - – 5 – 5 – 5 5 0 – – 5 – 5 5 – – 5 0 – – 5 5 – – 5 – 5 – 0 5 0 5 5 n F M n 9 1 9 4 2 4 8 5 1 5 1 a i o i s t k 4 a n t r a n e 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 b n a v 2 0 1 4 0 8 8 4 9 4 1 6 2 6 9 4 5 8 2 l a ...... o - e P P – 1 – 0 – 0 1 1 – – 0 – % 3 1 – – 6 3 – – 0 0 – – 2 – 0 – 0 4 0 0 1 c 7 4 1 M % . n N q a a e s e – – – – – – – – 0 5 5 – – 5 – – – 0 5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – % n r o 0 2 5 1 1 o F M i n 1 t i 3 s a t e 0 0 0 5 5 n r r 5 5 9 5 2 4 a . n ...... l e a P – – – – – – – – 5 2 4 – – 3 – – – 1 0 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – v P e % 0 1 o 1 c M . n q a – – – – 5 – – – – – 0 – 0 – 0 5 0 0 5 – – 5 5 – 5 – 5 – – 0 0 – – 5 g e e 6 2 1 1 4 6 1 4 % r n 5 i F M r S 2 a e l 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 C r 3 7 3 7 2 1 4 4 5 5 6 7 6 2 7 n ...... e a – – – – 3 – – – – – 0 – 0 – 8 0 0 8 0 – – 1 7 – 0 – 0 – – 2 6 – – 0 v e % 1 1 o c M . n q a e e 0 – 5 0 0 – – – – – 5 5 5 – 0 0 0 0 0 – 5 – 0 5 – – – – 5 0 5 – – 5 % r g 2 4 1 7 1 4 3 2 0 2 3 2 1 6 F M n 1 i r 1 N a e l r n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 C e a 8 5 6 2 3 5 1 3 2 0 5 6 2 9 1 9 0 0 6 v ...... e % o 1 – 4 1 6 – – – – – 0 0 0 – 4 2 1 3 4 – 0 – 5 1 – – – – 3 4 3 – – 0 c M 1 1 1 * m e t s e * u * l s t s B e r a l e r e o s t i l s G a V e A F f c n i a e l a e R t l c t - - i i r n i w L e y a o , t r v m r n I m A u u A n i o s ) r o ’ s a a y M i t s e p d o l a s n o t o a P d i r c r w n g s n n i A G g r . e - r L e n a d t e t a l r , r s * c s v e e o o i . d a y y n v F V h h o r r r G R E ( ö r r r t s - S e y , , e y l e e a * n L n , F s r y i e e e h h i h s N n a a * b t d n u s a D t y r C w l r a ) e t e r a . n ) c S o o H r d r e G u M d k i x u l l y , e s , n c * n w G l d l G ) h o o d b a a l a B a & i t k n a c a e r y k r e d i n r i r . S o M i V h k l r a c A a o a b n B i . s r r i p r a o a e M e e n ) p p f l B s u w o . i ( d n u n v i d p i G t s l r S i b k a i ) n T B p s n e n t h , l . b d r e I , m i r S a ) s e e a S w k . . u n s y A h . r i l - u r G d , h i a t t o n n s l s i n w w - o t p M i a r ( e k e g o k a r a L e s L e r s e o O e r s T w u v o r * o u ( n r a t l d a n ( o h a z i T i l n u o r , e i o q o t e N l s p e . N G t d r g O . e k e h s o s ) l ( P n u a o . n d , e a H i e u a r m d n e m u Y t i l l d u l H c s e M d n a , a e e l l e u L W e e , u B a l S ( e t t s P t i o W o s l ) h a l n l c , , i K g h s ) , . , A , Q a i M . . ) o R c . e u . . o a . s k e h R n t G B y ) , W v . t i r x L i i n m . n x n a r c d e l l R u a ( R . n K r W o a i x l t h g i y y o u e a u h i r W L ( l i u p A l , x N v t . c ) h c P J n i h k ( g c a h a . d e r r M i r h o e i t ) i t , c r n . ) a c , c ) o a d a a . h l i , s . o d t s m r . . n i o C t t W . r P u i p L l i v n a M . ) e n W r i e E b a r u M t f P o L e ( r s t , t ) r i o M h h ) e . u r ( , t a a , . . o n l R a a s t r y A p s i e . W m a c s e u a m S c d i i l s i e h t s o a v , L m R d i l o o h a N e p i s n f . s s e , S e A ( o t a m n z , i u i t A . s r n K d o E r M , ( s L . n n R l , t d i u f P o . A y o i a n d . a a , a i , a m ) i A s e ( ( l l t a a a r i . l t . a n r a i L c ( u m r A l l o l n a i a m r a i u g a u h i l d i i S S l L M L e n n t o O u S e g u i o e n e g a n D a r A E E t r ( u u o e p a m a r c n y s s s s r h p o u n r i i g W c T T a l i a s q m h u a o n s r c a u m u o o i b s e y q a m s i g c a e i o m i Y Y a a l g b r r b a e u d b S k c s d r n u i r u r n l n P n j h e p u H H r i ( e s t m r b d n e o n u n y r l N ( t s m e r a u i s P P i m m t l r . i t p s e o b o o o E a a t a h s s s e u t l e m s d s u O O l i l u a a 1 s y i a d i a c n g g g b r s s i H u u i p h a a a f a u r a Y Y n b h e l t h n e o e t a s a a a l c c E u d C i c o i s s s i h l R R p g I i z c i a r p r a n a a u z L d d d x u c n a a c i i h u u u t g h r l l y r r i i i i e e e B L B t y b s s B e a l p u c i r l l l l x m h n n n p i e u y o o r r u u i i i i r t u o o p A i i o o o r a y p o o o o c a o T S M M O O P P P P P P P P P V V Q V T T S S S Q S S S S S R R R 2010 CATLING AND KOSTIUK : R E-ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE SAVANNAH FLORA 175

In some situations plant diversity may be high but

) individuals may be small and or weak and non-pro - a n n o i a ductive with implications for dependent species in the t i a s 1 – – 1 – – – – – – – – – – – t k

E ecosystem such as plant-feeding insects and insect- and n n a a l .

b plant-eating birds. To evaluate this visually, we have P 9 . 0 4 P

0 used graphs of ranked (highest to lowest) cover values ( 2

r without the single dominant species (

e Carex pennsyl - b vanica in the clearing and Red Pine or Jack Pine in the m e t plantation) where the greater the area below the graph p e

S line indicates greater contribution to the total cover of ) n a d o s i i non-dominant species, suggesting better “condition” t o m a n t i 7 – – 7 – – – – – – – – – – –

n of sub-dominants. N n s i a e l r d P . e t P 3 ( c Results e l l

o Return to Savannah Vegetation c

a Of the seven native shrubs reported by Porsild t a

D (1941) and Breitung (1957) as characteristic of the . ) savannah, five ( 4 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Ceanothus , 3 ( ovatus, Myrica asplenifolia, Prunus susquehannae, g n n i o ) were present in the restored 9 4 8 1 6 2 6 3 7 9 3 2 3 0 5 i r Vaccinium angustifolium t 9 1 2 1 2 S a a e t area and most were dominants. The major dominant in l n C a l the restored area was the native sedge Carex pensyl - p

g vanica , a characteristic species of savannah. With the n i

d dominance of a characteristic native graminoid plant n

u and the same native shrubs reported as pre-plantation o r r

u dominants, the natural vegetation appears to have been s

n successfully restored. i d n g a Biodiversity Increase n ) i r 2 2 2 1 8 4 0 4 1 7 2 5 1 0 5 2 The two clearing transects and the Jack Pine plan - 1 , a N 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 e 1 l ( tation transect had similar numbers of vascular plant C a e

r species and similar values for various biodiversity a

n index measurements that were much higher than those o i t

a for the Red Pine plantation (Table 2). r r o t

e With regard to rare species (as defined in White s p e r r o r e

e 2004a, b) that were seen within 10 m of transects, h r p d p s e p e p s p r there were only three in the surrounding plantation: t o a r o a p r e h e h e o s k s l p G Piptatherum ( ) occurred in both the s h c

s Oryzopsis pungens c r p i a s a y e r r o s a r r Red Pine and Jack Pine; and p h a C m Epigaea repens Diphasi - e G e G r s p g p d s d o d i G y

p ( ) , occurred only in the a d w n astrum Lycopodium tristachyum e h s i r r o P l o s y u n e d h r i k s G d o

d latter. The situation was very different in the clearing p s y a o r n a s t e s t i r p y t t e a r l a a G s o c transects where a total of 19 regionally rare species G r r z p e e K h t s M z g r r ’ s S s G d e i i r r e h s d r h n e were present within 10 m of transects including: k C e e n r s Bro - d p s a a M i p c G r p r p a e r u i i o n a l , t a r r , r p p k t l

h subsp. ) t G B

) mus kalmii, Calystegia spithamaea spithamea, r e c o o s s n s C r A M u s h e y h d h u u e – t , , r i a d s o s n e r o ) d

n Carex siccata, Cyperus houghtonii, Deschampsia flex - ) l r r f l c s a – s i s o i e d e e r a f i i r a G d M a e r u b

r ( ) t N o r uosa, Dichanthelium Panicum boreale, Dichan thelium a b G F r c e d y m – , G l a o a l h G s S ) e e k o r l k ’ F ( ) ( r c e , l p c Panicum depauperatum, Elymus canadensis, Helian- H v a h ( c r e B ) l i a ( r s o r F r u u T s e d , o u t u t s e ) , e R t

d themum canadense , Helianthus divaricatus, Lechea s i s H r B g e C e p , & a u – n a e , , i n l ) , g t c ) G r o n r var. P ) s n o u s intermedia, Lithospermum caroliniense croceum, r d e r i e e l S t i a , e e w o ( e ) a d u p d e u k i r T ( ) e m D d c g n s l D

t Piptatherum Oryzopsis pungens, Polygala polygama, s e ( , m t ( o r a u a n n u G ) r d t c h c u x a u a s y u d e t a e Prunus susquehannae, Rubus pennsylvanicus, Schiza- W e s c S p T u a t s l u a B . ( s i D d s s i n S s c i l F i i

( ( ) var. s A i s ( e s c

l chyrium Andropogon scoparium coparium, ( r u r ( S i n s t u p l o ( c s a d u i i s n c a i a l a b u d var. and i f l s d n u e

a Sorghastrum, nutans, Viola adunca adunca, t o i i i t n i u r t n u s u r p i l r d t t u a i a a l a a e o i i t e

l var. A similar occurrence of t c t i a g m c Viola fimbriatula ovata. v l r o l i r c t i l i n c p n o e b v s s a u v y v e i u o i e a d regionally rare species can be seen in the quadrat a c r s s r p n h b k p f s b a u t n s c s u o r a s s s s s i g c n u data (Tables 1 and 3). x a u u u u u a b m e s i O p l l l l l l a i t e l h o i p . t p t p p p p p S e l r g i p The only introduced plant observed in the plantation 2 s e l s m o o o o o e a t a L h o e e u u n n n n n t t r E i e d o l l A r r n h a a a a a l L c a was . Since it had low frequency and o d a l l l l l Frangula alnus T l o m o o p y e B t h u l e e e e e r r h h o h l p O o A p c cover values there was no need to take this species into T M T S T M M M M S O C C S N G A C 176 THE CANADIAN FIELD -N ATURALIST Vol. 124

TABLE 3. Number of vascular plant species, number of rare (distributionally significant) following Brunton (2005*) and values for the Brillouin’s and reciprocal of Simpson’s biodiversity indices for each of four transects inside a cleared restoration area (1,2) and in surrounding plantation (3,4). 34 Total 12Plantation N Plantation E Species Clearing N Clearing S P. resinosa P. banksiana Number of species 63 33 27 10 31 Number of rare species 15 13 91 3 Brillouin’s Index (freq.) n/a 4.198 3.748 2.413 3.963 Simpson’s Index (cover) n/a 15.223 9.999 4.042 12.218 Simpson’s Index (freq.) n/a 16.818 10.804 4.040 12.472

account at the present time, but given its seriously Biodiversity Increase invasive nature (Catling and Porebski 1994) it is con - The fact that the Jack Pine plantation transect had ceivable that it will impact future restoration as it higher biodiversity than one of the clearing transects becomes more common in the area. may be explained by the fact that these pines with rel - The ranked cover graphs indicated that the clearing atively open canopies were established in an open area transects had greater cover of non-dominant species of original vegetation that was able to survive in a (Figure 4), suggesting that more shrubby and herba ce- depleted condition due to the continuation of some - ous species were in good condition than in the planta - what open conditions. The remnant species of open tion transects. This was confirmed by visual obse rvation habitats along with species of more shaded conditions of a number of species, such as Vaccinium angustifoli - that spread into the plantation apparently combined um and Prunus susquehannae . Both were fairly fre - to produce a relatively high diversity. The Red Pine quent in the Jack Pine plantation transect, but rarely plantation excluded much more light and also gave rise produced flowers or fruit there. Abundant flower and to dense needle litter which buried ground flora. fruit production by robust shrubs of both of these Although the Jack Pine plantation had biodiversity species was observed in the clearing transects. values approaching that of the restored clearing, the smaller number of regionally rare species resulted in a Re-establishment of Orthopteroid Insects The diversity of orthopteropid insects was much lower level of biodiversity significance there. Further - higher in the clearing (Table 3), where 14 species and more the smaller amount of non-dominant vegetation 201 individuals were recorded, as opposed to eight cover in the Jack Pine plantation, than in the clearing, individuals of one species in the surrounding planta - attests to the poor condition of much of the plantation tion. The only species found in the pine plantation flora with a resultant lesser value to pollinators and plant-feeding insects. was Melanoplus punctulatus punctulatus , which lives in and feeds on Red Pine. Among the species present Re-establishment of Orthopteroid Insects in the clearing, the populations of Spharagemon bolli The much higher diversity of an indicator group of bolli and Melanoplus fasciatus constitute impressive plant dependent insects in the clearing is not surprising occurrences of locally uncommon species strongly as- considering the higher plant diversity and better con - sociated with natural, open habitats. The former is usu - dition of the flora, and the general finding that insect ally associated with open sand with sparse grass and diversity tracks plant diversity (e.g. Knops et al. 1999). shrub cover. The latter is associated with open areas The origin of these insects is an interesting question with huckleberry and/or blueberry (Vickery and Kevan since they were not found in the adjacent plantation. 1985). It seems most likely that they followed open habitat along paths and firebreaks into the site. It is also con - Discussion ceivable that they persisted in very low numbers in Return to Savannah Vegetation the Jack Pine plantation where the ground flora per - A limitation of the present restoration attempt was sisted in a depleted condition. the small geographic area involved, which in the con - text of the landscape, results in a lack of topographic Conclusions variation. The restored area is low and flat. Had it been The restoration of savannah from pine plantation larger, it may have included higher and steeper areas has not been extensive enough in Ontario to provide and it would likely have included different assemblages evidence for success on the basis of statistical analy - of species and more domination by those preferring sis of many replicated samples. This study however, drier and sandier conditions. Regardless of this limita - does provide some useful evidence pertaining to a sin - tion, the restoration of pre-settlement and pre- planta - gle situation. It strongly suggested that restoration of tion vegetation based on limited effort was successful. a savannah destroyed by a pine plantation can be eas - 2010 CATLING AND KOSTIUK : R E-ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE SAVANNAH FLORA 177

FIGURE 4. G raphs of ranked (highest to lowest) cover values without the single dominant species ( Carex pennsylvanica in the clearing and Red Pine or Jack Pine in the plantation). The greater the area below the graph line indicates greater contribution to the total cover of non-dominant species, suggesting better “condition” of sub-dominant species.

ily accomplished, especially if remnants of the previ - mum possible extent so as to protect the largest amount ous ecosystem remain in the immediate vicinity and if of biodiversity. Considering the relatively low costs some are introduced during the early stages of restora - there is no reason not to indulge in extensive restora - tion. The importance of a local source of plants for tion of open habitat on plantation lands. recolonization has been established in other studies (Brudvig et al. 2009). In the present situation, both Acknowledgments plants and insects may have been able to take advan - Don Cuddy and Sean Thompson of the Ontario tage of open edges along paths as dispersal corridors. Ministry of Natural Resources provided background Not only was the savannah vegetation restored but materials. Don Cuddy shared information from his native biodiversity in The Sandhills study area was also personal notebooks. Jeff Skevington and Dan Brun - substantially promoted by returning the plantation to ton kindly commented on the manuscript. savannah. The results have included: (1) major increase in the number of regionally rare species; (2) Documents Cited (marked * in text) improvement in the condition of species of open Brunton, D. F. 2005. Vascular plants of the City of Ottawa, habitat compared to that seen in the plantation; and with identification of significant species, Appendix A of Muncaster Environmental Planning and Brunton Consult - (3) vast improvement in the diversity and abundance ing Services. 2005. Urban Natural Areas Environmental of an indicator group of plant dependent insects which Evaluation Study, Final Report. Planning and Growth occurred without direct intervention. Tools for moni - Management Department, City of Ottawa, Ottawa. toring and measuring success include historical des- Kasel, S. and T. Meers . 2004. Restoration of former pine criptions, and data from quadrats leading to compar - plantations in Australia: Revegetation techniques, pine isons of diversity, biodiversity indices and species wildling control, and the importance of land use history. rank order graphs. At this site and at all others where Society for Ecological Restoration International Online. https://www.ser.org/serbc/pdf/287_former_pine _plantati restoration actions have been taken there should be ons_Australia.pdf. continuing monitoring to establish the extent and Krebs, C. 2008. Ecological Methodology, programs for eco - continuation of beneficial effects. Both here and else - logical methodology, 2 nd edition. Exeter Software, Setau- where the restoration should be extended to the maxi - ket, New York. 178 THE CANADIAN FIELD -N ATURALIST Vol. 124

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009. Peter’s Catling, P. M., K. Spicer, and D. F. Brunton. 2010. The Woods Park Management Plan. Darlington Provincial Park. history of the Constance Bay Sandhills – decline of a bio- Bowmanville. 51 pages. diversity gem in the Ottawa valley. Trail and Landscape Taggart, J. B. 1990. Inventory, classification and preserva - 44(1): 106 –122. tion of coastal plain savannas in the Carolinas. Ph.D. dis - Clarke, C. H. D. 1971. The cult of the Red Pine. Ontario sertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Naturalist 9: 14-15. Carolina. Gilliam, F. S., and W. J. Platt. 2006. Conservation and res- White, D. J. 2004a. Rare plant inventory and management toration of the Pinus palustris ecosystem. Applied Vege - recommendations for Torbolton Forest. Transportation, tation Science 9: 7-10. Utilities and Public Works Department, City of Ottawa. Houseman, R. C., and R. C. Anderson. 2002. Effects of Jack White, D. J. 2004b. Rare plant manual. Transportation, Utili - Pine plantation management on barrens flora and poten - ties and Public Works Department, City of Ottawa. tial Kirtland’s Warbler nest habitat. Restoration Ecology Wilson, S. 1984. Restoration of the native vegetation of the 10: 27-36. Constance Bay Sandhills, Regional Municipality of Ottawa- Kartesz, J. T., and C. A. Meacham. 1999. Synthesis of the Carleton. The Plant Press 2(1): 6-7. North American Flora, Version 1.0 North Carolina Botan - ical Garden, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Literature Cited Knops, J. M., H., D. Tilman, N. M. Haddad, S. Naeem, C. Bakowsky, W., and J. Riley. 1994. A survey of the prairies E. Mitchell, J. Haarstad, M. E. Ritchie, K. M. Howe, and savannas of southern Ontario. Pages 7-16 in Proceed - P. B. Reich, E. Siemann, and J. Groth . 1999. Effects of ings of the Thirteenth North American Prairie Conference: plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease out - Spirit of the Land, Our Prairie Legacy. August 6-9, 1992. breaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters 2: Edited by R. Wickett, P. Dolan Lewis, A. Woodliffe and 286-293. P. Pratt, Corporation of the City of Windsor, Windsor, Krebs, C. 1999. Ecological methodology, 2 nd edition. Addi - Ontario. son, Wesley Longman Inc., New York. 620 pages. Breitung, A. J. 1957. Vascular flora on the sand dunes at Con - Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endan - stance Bay, Ontario. Le Naturaliste canadien 84 (3-4): gered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary 79-87. assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. Brudvig, L. A., E. I. Damschen, J. J. Tewksbury, N. M. U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Service, Haddad and D. J. Levey. 2009. Landscape connectivity Washington, D.C., 58. promotes plant biodiversity spillover into non-target habi - Porsild, A. E. 1941. A relic flora on sand dunes from the tats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Champlain Sea in the Ottawa valley. Canadian Field- the United States of America. 106(23): 9328-9332. Naturalist 55: 66-72. Cantrall, I. J. 1968. An annotatred list of the Dermaptera, Rodger, L. 1998. Tallgrass Communities of Southern On- Dictyoptera, Phasmatoptera, and Orthoptera of Michigan. tario: A Recovery Plan. World Wildlife Fund Canada and Michigan Entomologist 1: 299-346. the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 66 pages. Catling, P. M., and S. Carbyn. 2005. Invasive Scots Pine www.tallgrassontario.org/Publications/TallgrassRecovery (Pinus sylvestris ) replacing Corema ( Corema conradii ) Plan.pdf heathland in the Annapolis valley, Nova Scotia, Canada. Vickery, V. R., and D. K. M. Kevan. 1985. The insects and Canadian Field-Naturalist 119: 237-244 arachnids of Canada, part 14. The grasshoppers, crickets Catling, P. M., and B. King. 2008. Natural recolonization of and related insects of Canada and adjacent regions. Ulona - cultivated land by native prairie plants and its enhancement ta: Dermaptera, Cheleutoptera, Notoptera, Dictuoptera, by removal of Scots Pine, Pinus sylvestris. Canadian Field- Grylloptera, and Orthoptera. Agriculture Canada Research Naturalist 121: 89-91. Branch Publication 1777. Ottawa. Ontario. 918 pages. Catling, P. M., and Z. S. Porebski. 1994. The history of inva - sion and current status of Glossy Buckthorn, Rhamnus Received 16 April 2010 frangula , in southern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist Accepted 4 June 2010 108: 305-310.