Rouge River Park Research Paper
The Rouge River Park: Dog- strangling vine control
The Rouge River is one of the “largest natural environment parks in an urban area” (Rouge Park 2009). The park contains many different ecosystems and community types, some of which include riparian, restored wetlands, sandy beaches and farmland. It is a site full of ecological and historical significance; the park still plays an important role in the community today. Several experimental projects are going on at the Rouge River Park including the experimental control of the dog-strangling vine (DSV) (Cynanchum rossicum or Cynanchum louiseae.) There are two sites chosen for this photo journal; site 1 is the uncontrolled DSV area and site 2 is the controlled DSV area by mowing.
The substrate of an area is very central in …show more content…
determining what kind of animals and plants can subsist in that particular area. The two main geographic features of the chosen Rouge River Park site are the Little Rouge River and the gradual incline of the surrounding hills. The chosen sites are characteristic of the riparian woodlands community (Naiman and others 2005). The river has an effect on the soil quality; closer to the river, the soil is closer to silt than loam (Nahon an Trompette 2006), the further away from the river and the further up the slope the soil properties changed and became more characteristic of the loam soil. In riparian communities water plays a major role in shaping the landscape, carving its way through the land and carrying sediments from one area to another (Rouge Park 2009). In the Rouge River sites the river played a key role in the formation of the community, close to the river, the dominant vegetation types were shrubs, grasses, dog strangling vine and herbaceous plants with a few trees such as sugar maples, cedar and staghorn sumac trees. The community can be described as mid to late successional. At the pinnacle of the slope, the trees grow dense and tall, a characteristic of late successional woodlands (Franklin and Rey 2006). However, around the river and near the hiking paths, there are very few trees and increase in the abundance of tall grasses and shrubs, which is more characteristic of mid successional communities (Connell and Slayter 1977). There are more disturbances around the river and the hiking paths, which can contribute to the increase of grass species around those areas. There is a graduation from a riparian community, into a meadow community and then a forest community as you travel further up the slope (Delaney and others 2000).
Processes such as soil erosion, sediment movements, buffering are important in maintaining riparian communities. Surrounding the river is a riparian buffer system that helps reduce sediment particles, nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations, most of the buffering happens approximately 10-15 m after the river (Mankin and others 2007). The dominant vegetation types within a riparian community are grasses, shrubs and deciduous trees. Some of the most common plants found were herbaceous perennial species such as Canada goldenrods (Solidago canadensis), dog-strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum) and grasses including Phragmites (Phragmites australis). Some of the larger trees observed were sugar maples, cedar, pines, eastern helmlock and staghorn sumac trees of which the cedar, sugar maples and staghorn sumac were closer to the river bank than the others. Invasive species such as the Dog-strangling vine were wide spread all over community, with heavy abundance near the river and around the disturbed areas in the meadow. The abundance of Dog strangling vine decreased towards the undisturbed areas further away from the hiking paths. The second rouge river site, is a site in which the dog strangling vine populations are controlled using mowing for the past three years (Papoulias 2011). In the controlled site, populations of dog-strangling vine were only visible in the unmowed areas near the trees and near the edges of the controlled area. There may have been remnants of dog-strangling vine (DSV) stalks left after the mowing, however, it is difficult to distinguish mowed DSV stalks from the surrounding mowed grasses. Invasive species like the “dog-strangling vine are detrimental to the biodiversity of the rouge river park, since they are able to out compete the native species” (Rouge Park 2009).
DSV is most prevalent around the edges, hence one of the measures of controlling this invasive species includes decreasing the defragmentation, and the creation of edges in which the DSV and other invasive species like the garlic mustard may flourish (Foster and Sandberg 2004). By outcompeting the native species, the DSV and garlic mustard are a danger to the native grasses and plants. DSV disrupts the food webs and breeding patterns of the monarch butterfly and put the species at risk (Mattila and Otis 2003). Other invasive species can introduce disease and parasites which can kill the native plants and fauna, and thereby decreasing the biodiversity of the region (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2011). The Rouge River Park has “762 plant species of which six are nationally rare and 92 species which are regionally rare” (Rouge River Park 2009). Not only does the Rouge River Park have rare plant types, but also an assortment of rare reptiles, mammals, fish, and birds (Rouge River Park
2009). The rouge river park also has 96 regionally rare species of birds and plants, an example of these rare species include least bittern (Lanius ludovicianus), the red-headed woodpercker (Melanerpes erthyrocephalus), Blanding’s turtle (Emydiodea blandingii), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Northern Map turtle (Graptemys geographica) and nine other species (Rouge Park Trails 2011). The Rouge River area has a lengthy and significant human historical history, over 10 000 years worth of history and settlements (Rouge Park 2009). The first settlers were nomadic tribes to occupy Southern Ontario followed the caribou herds and Mastodon, their main food sources. Lithic artifacts found at the site suggest that this group of Palaeo Indians lived in the Rouge River area almost 12,000 years ago. In the next seven thousand years the area observed many climatic, “environmental and technological alterations” archeologoists have located 31 archaic sites and the settlers at the time were reliant on canoes (Rouge Park 2009). The initial woodland period began 300 years after the Archiac period, there were changes associated with the shift in living styles, including an expansion in population size, clay storage pots and burial mounds. European settlers did not reach the Toronto area until 1669 (Rouge Park 2009), the area was mostly used for farming, and even later on as landfill site, many of which have been restored. The introduction of people to the area has caused a negative impact on the diversity and the maintenance processes of the Rouge River Park. One of the ecosystems affected by humans and early farming are the riparian areas. Farming decreases the biodiversity of plants, birds and mammals within an area (Belfrage and others 2005). The keeping of livestock, which is often associated with farming, also affects the water quality, the plant abundance and species richness and the fish abundance (Kauffman and Kreuger 1984). Other communities like the meadows and valleys are also affected by agriculture, but also tourism and public access to park areas. Humans also impact an area through the introduction of invasive species to a region, some of the invasive species introduced include the dog-strangling vine, garlic mustard, common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, white sweet clover, bird-foot trefoil and many, many more. Human activity also helps in the spread of invasive species through their activities within a region. The dog-strangling vine also known as swallowwort has rapidly spread and established since its introduction as an ornament from Europe in the 1800’s (Tree Canada 2007). It is well established in southern Ontario and parts of Quebec. Not only does it out compete the native plants, it also kills native trees, by growing densely and limiting sunlight to tree saplings (Tree Canada 1007). It is evident around trails and in areas of heavy disturbance there is an increase in the presence of invasive species such as the dog-strangling vine. Populations of the dog-strangling vine are especially heavy around the trail edges and near the Little Rouge Creek. Heavy disturbance near the hiking trails decreases the populations of other plants and creates a widening gap that can later lead to habitat defragmentation (Foster and Sandberg 2004). Dog walkers have a particularly negative impact on the habitat; dogs, especially without leeches, often predate native birds, and create further disturbance in the area. The Ontario government has taken an increased interest in protecting the Rouge River Park, creating the Rouge Park Management Plan in 1994, and later modified it in 2001 (Rouge Park 2009). The government also donated land to increase the size of the Rouge River Park, as well as acknowledged its importance to the green infrastructure of Ontario. With all these policies in place, it is highly probable that the community will remain, as long as these policies remain in place. The park staff takes measures in trying to protect the ecological integrity of the community and maintain its biodiversity. The Rouge River community is especially vulnerable to invasive plant species and several control experiments are occurring at the Rouge River Park in attempts to control the spread of DSV (Papoulias 2011). In the second site chosen, there is a three-year experimental mowing of a DSV invaded site, it appears that mowing is partially successful in controlling the spread of DSV in that particular area, however, it is evident that in areas where it is difficult to mow the DSV, the DSV is still active. This is mainly evident around trees and around the edges of the controlled site where DSV is abundant. The Ontario government and the staff continue in their efforts to preserve the Rouge River community.
Citations
Belfrage K, Bjorklund J, Salomonsson L. 2005. The Effects of Farm Size and Organic Farming on Diversity of Birds, Pollinators, and Plants in a Swedish Landscape. Royal Swedish Academy of Science 34:8.
Connell JH, Slayter RO. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. The University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists. 111: 982: 1119-1144.
Delaney K, Rodger L, Woodliffe AP, Rhynard G, Morris P. 2000. Planting the seed. Environment Canada.
Fanklin J, Rey SJ. 2004. Spatial patterns of tropical forest trees in Western Polynesia suggest recruitment limitations during secondary succession. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:1–12.
Foster J, Sandberg LA. 2004. Friends or Foe? Invasive Species and Public Green Space in Toronto. Geographical Review 94:2:178-198.
Kauffman JB, Krueger WC. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications…A review. Journal of Range Management 37:5.
Mankin KR, Ngandu DM, Barden CJ, Hutchinson SL, Geyer WA. 2007. Grass-Shrub Riparian Buffer Removal of Sediment, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen From Simulated Runoff. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:5:1108-1116.
Mattila HR, Otis GW. 2003. A comparison of the host preference of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) for milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) over dog-strangler vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum). Entomolgia Experimentalis et Applicata107:3:193-199.
Nahon D, Trompette R. 2006. Origin of siltstones: glacial grinding versus weathering. Sedimentology 29:1:25-35.
Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME, Likens GE. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, conservation and management of streamside communities. Elsevier Inc [cited 2011 November 28]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/science/book/9780126633153
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources [Internet]. Biodiversity c; 2011 [cited 2011 November 30] Available from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/index.html?CSB_ic-name=specialInitiatives&CSB_ic-info=biodiversity_Eng
Papoulia, M. (2011) Personal Correspondence.
Rouge Park [Internet]. Rouge Park; c1998-2009 [cited 2011 November 13] Available from: http://www.rougepark.com/
Rouge Park Trails [Internet]. Environmental Sensitivity Analysis; c2011[cited 2011 November 30] Available from: http://www.rougepark.com/trail_master_plan/APPENDIX_E_Environmental_Sensitivity_Analysis.pdf
Tree Canada [Internet]. Tree Killers; c2007[cited 2011 November 29] Available from: http://www.treecanada.ca/tree-killers/dog-strangling-vine.htm
The Rouge River is one of the “largest natural environment parks in an urban area” (Rouge Park 2009). The park contains many different ecosystems and community types, some of which include riparian, restored wetlands, sandy beaches and farmland. It is a site full of ecological and historical significance; the park still plays an important role in the community today. Several experimental projects are going on at the Rouge River Park including the experimental control of the dog-strangling vine (DSV) (Cynanchum rossicum or Cynanchum louiseae.) There are two sites chosen for this photo journal; site 1 is the uncontrolled DSV area and site 2 is the controlled DSV area by mowing.
The substrate of an area is very central in …show more content…
determining what kind of animals and plants can subsist in that particular area. The two main geographic features of the chosen Rouge River Park site are the Little Rouge River and the gradual incline of the surrounding hills. The chosen sites are characteristic of the riparian woodlands community (Naiman and others 2005). The river has an effect on the soil quality; closer to the river, the soil is closer to silt than loam (Nahon an Trompette 2006), the further away from the river and the further up the slope the soil properties changed and became more characteristic of the loam soil. In riparian communities water plays a major role in shaping the landscape, carving its way through the land and carrying sediments from one area to another (Rouge Park 2009). In the Rouge River sites the river played a key role in the formation of the community, close to the river, the dominant vegetation types were shrubs, grasses, dog strangling vine and herbaceous plants with a few trees such as sugar maples, cedar and staghorn sumac trees. The community can be described as mid to late successional. At the pinnacle of the slope, the trees grow dense and tall, a characteristic of late successional woodlands (Franklin and Rey 2006). However, around the river and near the hiking paths, there are very few trees and increase in the abundance of tall grasses and shrubs, which is more characteristic of mid successional communities (Connell and Slayter 1977). There are more disturbances around the river and the hiking paths, which can contribute to the increase of grass species around those areas. There is a graduation from a riparian community, into a meadow community and then a forest community as you travel further up the slope (Delaney and others 2000).
Processes such as soil erosion, sediment movements, buffering are important in maintaining riparian communities. Surrounding the river is a riparian buffer system that helps reduce sediment particles, nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations, most of the buffering happens approximately 10-15 m after the river (Mankin and others 2007). The dominant vegetation types within a riparian community are grasses, shrubs and deciduous trees. Some of the most common plants found were herbaceous perennial species such as Canada goldenrods (Solidago canadensis), dog-strangling vine (Cynanchum rossicum) and grasses including Phragmites (Phragmites australis). Some of the larger trees observed were sugar maples, cedar, pines, eastern helmlock and staghorn sumac trees of which the cedar, sugar maples and staghorn sumac were closer to the river bank than the others. Invasive species such as the Dog-strangling vine were wide spread all over community, with heavy abundance near the river and around the disturbed areas in the meadow. The abundance of Dog strangling vine decreased towards the undisturbed areas further away from the hiking paths. The second rouge river site, is a site in which the dog strangling vine populations are controlled using mowing for the past three years (Papoulias 2011). In the controlled site, populations of dog-strangling vine were only visible in the unmowed areas near the trees and near the edges of the controlled area. There may have been remnants of dog-strangling vine (DSV) stalks left after the mowing, however, it is difficult to distinguish mowed DSV stalks from the surrounding mowed grasses. Invasive species like the “dog-strangling vine are detrimental to the biodiversity of the rouge river park, since they are able to out compete the native species” (Rouge Park 2009).
DSV is most prevalent around the edges, hence one of the measures of controlling this invasive species includes decreasing the defragmentation, and the creation of edges in which the DSV and other invasive species like the garlic mustard may flourish (Foster and Sandberg 2004). By outcompeting the native species, the DSV and garlic mustard are a danger to the native grasses and plants. DSV disrupts the food webs and breeding patterns of the monarch butterfly and put the species at risk (Mattila and Otis 2003). Other invasive species can introduce disease and parasites which can kill the native plants and fauna, and thereby decreasing the biodiversity of the region (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2011). The Rouge River Park has “762 plant species of which six are nationally rare and 92 species which are regionally rare” (Rouge River Park 2009). Not only does the Rouge River Park have rare plant types, but also an assortment of rare reptiles, mammals, fish, and birds (Rouge River Park
2009). The rouge river park also has 96 regionally rare species of birds and plants, an example of these rare species include least bittern (Lanius ludovicianus), the red-headed woodpercker (Melanerpes erthyrocephalus), Blanding’s turtle (Emydiodea blandingii), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Northern Map turtle (Graptemys geographica) and nine other species (Rouge Park Trails 2011). The Rouge River area has a lengthy and significant human historical history, over 10 000 years worth of history and settlements (Rouge Park 2009). The first settlers were nomadic tribes to occupy Southern Ontario followed the caribou herds and Mastodon, their main food sources. Lithic artifacts found at the site suggest that this group of Palaeo Indians lived in the Rouge River area almost 12,000 years ago. In the next seven thousand years the area observed many climatic, “environmental and technological alterations” archeologoists have located 31 archaic sites and the settlers at the time were reliant on canoes (Rouge Park 2009). The initial woodland period began 300 years after the Archiac period, there were changes associated with the shift in living styles, including an expansion in population size, clay storage pots and burial mounds. European settlers did not reach the Toronto area until 1669 (Rouge Park 2009), the area was mostly used for farming, and even later on as landfill site, many of which have been restored. The introduction of people to the area has caused a negative impact on the diversity and the maintenance processes of the Rouge River Park. One of the ecosystems affected by humans and early farming are the riparian areas. Farming decreases the biodiversity of plants, birds and mammals within an area (Belfrage and others 2005). The keeping of livestock, which is often associated with farming, also affects the water quality, the plant abundance and species richness and the fish abundance (Kauffman and Kreuger 1984). Other communities like the meadows and valleys are also affected by agriculture, but also tourism and public access to park areas. Humans also impact an area through the introduction of invasive species to a region, some of the invasive species introduced include the dog-strangling vine, garlic mustard, common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, white sweet clover, bird-foot trefoil and many, many more. Human activity also helps in the spread of invasive species through their activities within a region. The dog-strangling vine also known as swallowwort has rapidly spread and established since its introduction as an ornament from Europe in the 1800’s (Tree Canada 2007). It is well established in southern Ontario and parts of Quebec. Not only does it out compete the native plants, it also kills native trees, by growing densely and limiting sunlight to tree saplings (Tree Canada 1007). It is evident around trails and in areas of heavy disturbance there is an increase in the presence of invasive species such as the dog-strangling vine. Populations of the dog-strangling vine are especially heavy around the trail edges and near the Little Rouge Creek. Heavy disturbance near the hiking trails decreases the populations of other plants and creates a widening gap that can later lead to habitat defragmentation (Foster and Sandberg 2004). Dog walkers have a particularly negative impact on the habitat; dogs, especially without leeches, often predate native birds, and create further disturbance in the area. The Ontario government has taken an increased interest in protecting the Rouge River Park, creating the Rouge Park Management Plan in 1994, and later modified it in 2001 (Rouge Park 2009). The government also donated land to increase the size of the Rouge River Park, as well as acknowledged its importance to the green infrastructure of Ontario. With all these policies in place, it is highly probable that the community will remain, as long as these policies remain in place. The park staff takes measures in trying to protect the ecological integrity of the community and maintain its biodiversity. The Rouge River community is especially vulnerable to invasive plant species and several control experiments are occurring at the Rouge River Park in attempts to control the spread of DSV (Papoulias 2011). In the second site chosen, there is a three-year experimental mowing of a DSV invaded site, it appears that mowing is partially successful in controlling the spread of DSV in that particular area, however, it is evident that in areas where it is difficult to mow the DSV, the DSV is still active. This is mainly evident around trees and around the edges of the controlled site where DSV is abundant. The Ontario government and the staff continue in their efforts to preserve the Rouge River community.
Citations
Belfrage K, Bjorklund J, Salomonsson L. 2005. The Effects of Farm Size and Organic Farming on Diversity of Birds, Pollinators, and Plants in a Swedish Landscape. Royal Swedish Academy of Science 34:8.
Connell JH, Slayter RO. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. The University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists. 111: 982: 1119-1144.
Delaney K, Rodger L, Woodliffe AP, Rhynard G, Morris P. 2000. Planting the seed. Environment Canada.
Fanklin J, Rey SJ. 2004. Spatial patterns of tropical forest trees in Western Polynesia suggest recruitment limitations during secondary succession. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23:1–12.
Foster J, Sandberg LA. 2004. Friends or Foe? Invasive Species and Public Green Space in Toronto. Geographical Review 94:2:178-198.
Kauffman JB, Krueger WC. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications…A review. Journal of Range Management 37:5.
Mankin KR, Ngandu DM, Barden CJ, Hutchinson SL, Geyer WA. 2007. Grass-Shrub Riparian Buffer Removal of Sediment, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen From Simulated Runoff. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:5:1108-1116.
Mattila HR, Otis GW. 2003. A comparison of the host preference of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) for milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) over dog-strangler vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum). Entomolgia Experimentalis et Applicata107:3:193-199.
Nahon D, Trompette R. 2006. Origin of siltstones: glacial grinding versus weathering. Sedimentology 29:1:25-35.
Naiman RJ, Decamps H, McClain ME, Likens GE. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, conservation and management of streamside communities. Elsevier Inc [cited 2011 November 28]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/science/book/9780126633153
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources [Internet]. Biodiversity c; 2011 [cited 2011 November 30] Available from: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/index.html?CSB_ic-name=specialInitiatives&CSB_ic-info=biodiversity_Eng
Papoulia, M. (2011) Personal Correspondence.
Rouge Park [Internet]. Rouge Park; c1998-2009 [cited 2011 November 13] Available from: http://www.rougepark.com/
Rouge Park Trails [Internet]. Environmental Sensitivity Analysis; c2011[cited 2011 November 30] Available from: http://www.rougepark.com/trail_master_plan/APPENDIX_E_Environmental_Sensitivity_Analysis.pdf
Tree Canada [Internet]. Tree Killers; c2007[cited 2011 November 29] Available from: http://www.treecanada.ca/tree-killers/dog-strangling-vine.htm