Plant community types of sand dunes and sand plains in selected areas of the Boreal Natural Region Plant community types of sand dunes and sand plains in selected areas of the Boreal Natural Region Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Resource Data Branch Edmonton, Alberta Prepared by Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd. #60 Neal Close, Red Deer, Alberta T4P 1N4 Office: (403) 346-1057 Fax: (403) 346-3257 Cite publication as: Riddell, R.N. 2005. Plant community types of sand dunes and sand plains in selected areas of the Boreal Natural Region. Prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Resource Data Branch. Prepared by Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd., Red Deer Alberta. February 2005 Executive Summary The Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre (ANHIC) inventories, monitors and disseminates information on biological diversity in Alberta. Detailed data regarding provincial flora, fauna and native plant communities are collected and tracking lists have been developed to monitor elements of biodiversity that are considered rare or have other special significance. Plant communities occurring in areas of unique landforms often support small patch communities that are not well documented in the province. Consequently, information gaps were identified concerning plant communities that inhabit eolian landforms in the boreal forests. Resource Data Branch of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development contracted Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd. to identify and inventory plant communities of the boreal sand dunes and sand plains in Holmes Crossing Sandhills Ecological Reserve and a proposed provincial park and natural area near North Buck Lake, Alberta. These sites were chosen as representative eolian landforms of the Boreal Central Mixedwood and Dry Boreal Mixedwood Natural Subregions, respectively. Eolian landforms in the Holmes Crossing Sandhills Ecological Reserve are predominately a series of well preserved transverse sand dunes with associated parabolic sand dunes and a small section of sand plains. Upland vegetation here is mainly jack pine forest, scattered stands of aspen, black spruce, mixedwood, and small stands of paperbirch and white spruce. Lowland areas support stands of black spruce and tamarack sphagnum bogs. Interdune wetlands were dominated by sedge fens, dwarf birch and willow communities. In the Holmes Crossing Sandhills Ecological Reserve there were very few areas of open sand and no active sand dunes or blowouts were observed. The North Buck Lake study area is drier and is dominated by parabolic sand dunes with larger surface areas of exposed sand. Sand dunes in this study area were stabilised by a similar pattern of vegetation although soils were more xeric influencing plant communities. There is considerable ground disturbance in the North Buck Lake study area as a result of recreational off-road vehicle use. This has affected the vegetation especially in dry open habitats and has led to an increased area of exposed sand. In contrast, the Holmes Crossing Sandhills Ecological Reserve is well signed and most trailheads were blocked to vehicular access. However, there was some ground disturbance at trailheads and All Terrain Vehicle tracks were observed on several backcountry trails and seismic lines. This study focused on the inventory of natural and semi-natural plant communities. Unique or recurring plant communities were identified in the field and inventoried using standard provincial ecological site and vegetation forms. The concepts for potential plant communities were first developed in the field by tabulating the percent ground cover of dominant species within each stratum for each stand sampled. This preliminary grouping of stands with similar characteristics helped to identify potential communities and to direct sampling efforts. A range of site positions and ecological conditions were investigated in search of unique or recurring plant communities. Field data was then analysed using PC-ORD (Version 4.25) to statistically determine grouping of plant communities using Detrended Correspondence Analysis and agglomerative cluster analysis. The results were critically reviewed and final plant communities were then classified according to The International Classification of Ecological Communities. Descriptive statistics were produced for each community and these were used to compare the community type to other documented types. Based on a literature review, ratings were assigned to reflect the degree of similarity between each type and the current classification. A total of 64 detailed plots were completed including 32 in each study area. Data analysis resulted in the identification of 31 potential plant community types. These included 17 forest, 7 shrubland and 7 herbaceous vegetation types. There were 5 jack pine types, 1 white spruce, 4 black spruce, 1 tamarack, 4 aspen, and 2 white birch types identified. Shrubland types included 1 bog birch, 2 willow wetlands, 1 green alder, 2 bearberry, and 1 dwarf black spruce - tamarack type. Herbaceous vegetation types included 2 wet sedge fens, 1 bluejoint wet meadow, 1 fowl grass shoreline, 1 Rocky Mountain fescue – plains wormwood xeric opening, 1 hay sedge-poverty oat grass, and 1 slender wheat grass community. There was considerable diversity of plant communities observed during the study and it is recommended that additional sampling be conducted to search for additional plant communities. Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd. Boreal Sand Dunes Community Survey - Final Report 2005 ii Acknowledgements Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd. would like to thank Mr. Keith Ainsley of Resource Data Branch, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) for support and guidance. Ms. Lorna Allen of Community Development Department, Parks & Protected Areas, ASRD, reviewed the final report. Mr. Ian Macdonald assisted with the collection of data at all plots, identification of the all vascular plants and plot summaries. Ms. Janet Marsh identified lichens and ephiphytes, and Ms. Jennifer Doubt identified unknown mosses. Ms. Lynne Wassick assisted with data entry and production of the final report. Mr. Rick Riddell of Wildlands Ecological was responsible for project management, field surveys and analysis, and the final report. Mr. Garry E. Hornbeck, M.Sc., P.Biol., of Wildlife & Company Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, also reviewed the final report. Wildlands Ecological Consulting Ltd. Boreal Sand Dunes Community Survey - Final Report 2005 iii Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents....................................................................................................................................................................................iv List of Tables...........................................................................................................................................................................................v List of Figures....................................................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Plates........................................................................................................................................................................................ viii List of Appendices............................................................................................................................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Areas..............................................................................................................................................................................2 2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................................4 2.3 Reporting .................................................................................................................................................................................5 2.3.1 Vegetation Classification System..................................................................................................................................5 2.3.2 Floristic Unit Classification Confidence Level .............................................................................................................6