Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program: Key Findings Report

AUTHORS: Sara Steel Master of Science candidate [email protected] Dr. Dalal Hanna Project supervisor [email protected] Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program 1 2 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program On behalf of: Corporation du Parc du Poisson Blanc 37, ch de la Truite, Notre-Dame-Du-Laus (Québec) J0X 2M0 [email protected] Written and prepared by: Sara Steel Project leader, Carleton University Dalal Hanna Primary investigator, Carleton University Fieldwork and data collection conducted by: Xavier Proulx Field technician - ecology Sara Steel Project leader, Carleton University Supported by: Jérémie Gravel Directeur général, Parc régional du Poisson Blanc Geneviève Trothier Directrice générale adjointe, Parc régional du Poisson Blanc Marilou Pelletier Directrice communication et expérience, Parc régional du Poisson Blanc Graphic design by: Marianne Gagnon Graphic Designer Funded by: Mitacs EcoCanada 3 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Executive Summary The Poisson Blanc Regional Park is located in Quebec, Canada, and welcomes approximately 35 000 users every year across the 59 campsites they currently manage on the Poisson Blanc Reservoir. The Watershed Stewardship Research Collaborative (WSRC) is an academic research team based out of Carleton University, in Ottawa, Canada, with expertise in freshwater stewardship. These two groups partnered to develop a custom ecological monitoring program for the Park focused on providing Park managers with a better understanding of the ecological status of the area they manage, how it responds to recreational use, as well as the management actions that are implemented in the Park. The Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program was implemented for the first time in the summer of 2024. This document outlines the initial results of this program, showcasing key information about the 10 indicators that were measured across 52 of the Park’s 59 campsites. It also serves as an example of how collaboration can lead to the successful development and implementation of ecological monitoring programs in regional parks. Why implement an ecological monitoring program? Parks provide key habitat for biodiversity, make significant contributions to human well-being and foster ecological integrity. Monitoring efforts can help improve understanding of the socio-ecological implications of having a park in place, as well as provide information regarding how an area is changing through time, and whether or not alternative management strategies are needed to sustainably achieve conservation and human well-being objectives. Selection of indicators for the monitoring program The indicators assessed as part of this program were selected through a multi-step process. First, the partnering research team compiled a list of indicators used in existing monitoring programs and relevant scientific literature (see Table SI 3). Input on additional potential locally relevant indicators was then gathered from the research team, park staff, and local collaborators. The relevance and feasibility to quantify each potential indicator in the context of this program were then assessed, and a final list of 10 top priority indicators were selected by the research team and Park. Together, the 10 selected indicators will allow the Park to track various aspects of human impact, ecosystem status, biodiversity and water quality. 4 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program 5 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table of Contents 6 Park Status 9 Explanation of the Categorization of Indicators 10 Breaking Down the Word ‘Indicator’ 11 Breakdown of Content on Each Individual Indicator Page 12 Direct Human Impact 13 Campsite Area 15 Length of Redundant Trails 17 Trail Width 19 Soil Compaction 21 Root Exposure in the Campsite Activity Area 23 Human Markings on Trees 25 Ecosystem Status 26 Carbon Storage of Live Woody Plants in the Activity Area 28 Water Quality 29 Indicators of Water Quality Across the Reservoir 31 Biodiversity 32 Edible Plants 35 Composition of Understory Vegetation Surrounding Trails 37 Concluding remarks 38 References 42 Supplementary Information 6 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Park Status Following the first year of implementation of the Poisson Blanc Ecological Monitoring Program, the research team compiled and analyzed the data from the selected indicators to assess the ecological state of the Park. The results are presented in Table 2, which summarizes the performance of each of the 10 indicators that were assessed across the 52 monitored campsites. The criteria for the performance levels used in the evaluation are outlined in Table 1. Based on the initial findings, the Park’s ecological condition is good. This is largely attributed to the relatively small proportion of land used for recreational activities compared to the total area of the Park and the Poisson Blanc Reservoir. A variety of plant species were found within campsite areas, and no concerning water quality measurements were collected during the summer sampling period. Despite this, several indicators show areas for concern, particularly in relation to certain high-use campsites. For the indicators that received poor evaluations, the research team has provided targeted, actionable recommendations that could help mitigate further ecosystem degradation and improve overall ecosystem health. It is important to emphasize that these results reflect only the first year of monitoring, and as the program continues, additional data will provide a more comprehensive understanding of long-term trends. With continued monitoring, the Park will be able to refine their management practices and assess the effectiveness of any corrective actions implemented. The following sections offer a detailed review of each indicator’s performance and outline potential pathways for maintaining the Park’s ecological status over time. Table 1. Criteria used to define the status of an indicator across all surveyed campsites, categorized into four classes. Indicator status Description Very good 85% or more of campsites show measurements of good ecosystem health, with no concerning measurements recorded at any campsite. The ecological status, as indicated by the monitoring data, is stable or improving over time. Good 70% or more of campsites show measurements of good ecosystem health, and only one concerning measurement is recorded at an individual campsite. The ecological status, as indicated by the monitoring data, is mostly stable or improving, with minor fluctuations. Acceptable 55% or more of campsites show measurements of good ecosystem health, and concerning measurements are recorded at two to five campsites. The ecological status, as indicated by the monitoring data, is stable over time. Poor More than 50% of campsites show measurements of poor ecosystem health, with several concerning measurements recorded across campsites. The ecological status, as indicated by the monitoring data, is consistently declining and worsening over time. References: Sepaq (2017) 7 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table 2. Overview of the results from the first year (2024) of monitoring efforts at the Poisson Blanc Regional Park. Each indicator has been evaluated based on criteria in Table 1. Management targets represent the ideal state of the ecosystem specific to each indicator that would receive a very good evaluation. Indicator Indicator status Support for evaluation Management target Trend over time Campsite area Very Good 98% of campsites evaluated occupy less than 30% of the island or land mass they are situated on. Recreational area should occupy less than 30% of the total Park area. First year: more data required Indicators of water quality Very good No anomalous values were recorded; data aligns with expected water quality for freshwater lakes and reservoirs used for recreation. Consistent results should be recorded over time, with no anomalies in water quality. First year: more data required Composition of understory vegetation surrounding trails Very good Plots surrounding trails consistently showed similar data to control plots. No major disparities should be observed between neartrail and control plots over time. First year: more data required Edible plants Very good At least one edible plant species was observed at every campsite. No depletion of edible plant populations should occur over time. First year: more data required Campsite carbon storage (via live woody plants) Good The three lowest carbon stock measurements for activity areas were found at campsites with some of the largest activity areas. Campsites should maintain consistent carbon stock per area. Large campsites should not have disproportionately low carbon stock. First year: more data required Root exposure Good 12% of campsites show severe root exposure (score > 6), with one major issue observed at a campsite. Campsites with root exposure scores > 6 should be monitored closely for tree health. First year: more data required Soil compaction Acceptable 24% of campsite activity areas and 17% of trail measurements show severe soil compaction (> 4 kg/ cm2). Maintain soil compaction within the designated boundaries of trails and campsites. If significant campsite sprawl or trail expansion is observed, consider temporarily closing the affected areas or the entire campsite to allow for natural restoration and rehabilitation. First year: more data required 8 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Indicator Indicator status Support for evaluation Management target Trend over time Length of redundant trails Poor 56% of campsites have one or more redundant trails. No change in the number or length of redundant trails should be observed over time at campsites. Restore existing redundant trails wherever possible, especially where campsites have enough space to allow for sections to be closed off to clients to encourage recovery and minimize further soil degradation. Redundant trails wider than 100 cm (conservative) should be closed and restored to encourage vegetation recovery and reduce soil damage. First year: more data required Trail width Poor 78% of trails (based on generous measurements) exceed 100 cm in width. Trail width should not exceed 100 cm at any campsite, as suggested by Rando Quebec’s trail development standards1. First year: more data required Human markings on trees Poor All campsites had at least one tree with human markings. No increase in human markings on trees over time. First year: more data required 1 Rando Quebec is a non-profit organization that provides guidelines for sustainable trail development to land managers across Quebec. 9 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Explanation of the Categorization of Indicators An ecological indicator provides information on an ecological process or pattern, and is measured to provide insights into the ecological status of a system and how it changes through time. The indicators recommended for this monitoring program are nested within two major themes: indicators that measure anthropogenic (i.e. human) stressors, or indicators that measure ecosystem components. Anthropogenic stressor: Unnatural effects and characteristics caused by human activity. These stress factors can disrupt the functioning of an ecosystem. Ecosystem component: A natural process or component that occurs within an ecosystem. Although human interactions can influence the rate and extent to which these processes occur, an ecosystem component would continue to operate in the absence of human activity. The indicators are then further categorized by parameter, which describe the broader process that each indicator measures. The selected indicators measure four parameters: direct human impact, ecosystem status, biodiversity and water quality. Direct human impact: A measure of the impacts on an ecosystem that are the direct result of human activity. Ecosystem status: A measure of characteristics that explain ecological processes operating within an ecosystem. Biodiversity: A measure of the characteristics of an ecosystem that provide information on the presence, absence and diversity of species. Water quality: A measure of various biological, physical or chemical components of water. 16 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Figure 3. Total trail length per campsite, separated in colour by trail type. Brown sections represent the total redundant trail length (m) at a campsite and green sections represent the total formal trail length (m) at a campsite. The number of redundant trails present per site are expressed as the number above each column Considerations: Redundant trails increase human disturbance within campsite areas and contribute to environmental degradation. Limiting foot traffic to designated, maintained trails would help reduce these pressures. The Park should aim to maintain or reduce the current number and length of redundant trails at campsites, with particular attention to the most pronounced cases. This can be achieved through strategies such as installing informative signage that encourages visitors to stay on official trails, restoring redundant paths by allowing natural re-vegetation or covering them with leaves and debris, and establishing natural borders, such as bushes, large rocks, planted trees, logs, or brush piles, to guide use along the formal trail network. References: Leung et al. (2011); Ballantyne and Pickering (2015) 17 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Trail Width Theme Parameter Cost Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact $ Description: The width of a trail is measured as the distance (cm) across the length of a trail that is not covered by vegetation and has a clear border created by recreational use or signage. Measuring this over time is important to ensure that recreational use is not unnecessarily extending trails into unintended ecosystems. Frequency of measurement Required equipment Annually GPS, tablet (on site data entry), Measuring tape, measuring wheel, survey markers Summary of methods: Two measures of trail width (conservative and generous) were measured at three separate locations along a minimum of one established trail at each campsite. The generous width was the widest used width of the trail, identified by the outermost edge of bare vegetation. The conservative width was the width of the trail most frequently used by visitors, identified by the deepest trail depression or the most heavily worn path. Sampled locations were marked to allow for inter-annual comparison. The initial measurement of this indicator was taken by a member of the research team, and subsequent measurements will be carried out by park staff. Key findings: • Generous trail widths ranged from 64 cm to 326 cm, and conservative trail widths ranged from 30 cm to 200 cm. • Most generous trails are between 100 cm and 199 cm wide (Figure 4) compared to 50 cm to 99 cm wide for conservative trails (Figure 4). 18 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Figure 4. Trail width for generous (green) and conservative (brown) trail widths by width category at official trails in campsites. Considerations: Unnecessarily wide trails increase the amount of trampled and compacted soil. By limiting the extent of leaf blowing on trails, the Park could help minimize impact. This is especially relevant for trails with widths exceeding 100 cm, which is considered to be wide enough for managed trail uses by Rando Quebec’s trail development standards. The Park could also consider using natural trail borders alongside trails whose generous widths exceed 100 cm to help restrain their extent. References: Marion and Leung (2011); Rando Québec (2020) 19 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Soil Compaction Theme Parameter Cost Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact $$ Description: Soil gets compacted when pressure is applied to the soil surface, removing air spaces within a soil layer. Compaction makes it difficult for plant roots to grow and water to get absorbed. Human activity (walking, biking, driving) compacts soil and should be monitored to ensure the compaction takes place only in designated areas to avoid harm to surrounding habitats. Soil compaction can be measured by the soil density or by its resistance to penetration by either water or force (force required to push an object into the soil). Frequency of measurement Required equipment Every 2 years at closing Pocket penetrometer, measuring wheel, GPS, tablet (on site data entry), survey markers Summary of methods: Soil compaction was measured, using a pocket penetrometer, in the activity area and at three separate locations along a minimum of one established trail at each campsite. Sampled locations were marked with survey markers to allow for inter-annual comparison. The initial measurement of this indicator was taken by a member of the research team, and subsequent measurements will be carried out by Park staff. Key findings: • Soil compaction in activity areas was, on average, six times higher than in adjacent non-recreational undisturbed areas, while compaction on trails was ten times greater. • Soil compaction in the activity area has a much larger range of compaction values in comparison in control areas, which are consistently not compacted. • The most common individual compaction level recorded was 4 kg/cm2 in activity areas and 2.5kg/cm2 on trails (Table 3). • The majority of campsites have heavy to severe impacts on root health and root stability in activity areas (Table 3). • All sites have at least one trail whose compaction impacts soil and vegetation health (Table 3). 20 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table 3. Soil compaction levels and their associated effects on roots. The average activity area compaction was calculated from three measurements per site. Each of the nine trail compaction measurements are expressed in the table. Two campsite activity areas (12d, 70k) were located on rock faces where soil compaction was not measured. Degree of compaction Compaction (kg/cm) Effects on roots Average campsite activity area compaction value for each compaction range Number of soil compaction measurements along trails for each compaction range No compaction 0-0.1 No effects on roots. 0 0 Light compaction 0.11-1 Root development, nutrient absorption, and water uptake may be compromised at soil compaction levels starting at 0.8 kg/cm2. 1 38 Moderate compaction 1.01-2 Root development, nutrient absorption, and water uptake are moderately impacted. 5 123 Compact 2.01-3 Root development, nutrient absorption, and water uptake are impacted. 16 133 Heavy compaction 3.01-4 Root development, nutrient absorption, and water uptake are heavily impacted. 16 91 Severe compaction >4 Root development, nutrient absorption, and water uptake are severely impacted. Root growth stops completely at a soil compaction level of ~5kg/ cm2. 12 77 Considerations: Compact soil impacts root and tree health, water absorption, and soil microorganism health. The Park could consider more in depth inspection of trees at campsites where soil compaction levels exceed 4 kg/cm2 to enable proactive management prior to root and tree damage. The Park could also consider confining activity areas to limit soil compaction. Implementing clear borders around these areas and restricting the use of leaf blowers could help prevent the sprawl of damaged land. References: Marion and Cole (1996); Alessa and Earnhart (2000); Passioura (2002); Bengough et al. (2011); Marion and Leung (2011); Mallikage et al. (2021) 21 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Root Exposure in the Campsite Activity Area Theme Parameter Cost Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact $ Description: Tree roots can become exposed through various erosional processes, including natural ones such as rain, or human induced ones such as trail use (hiking, biking, ATV). When roots become exposed, they are at risk for damage from trampling by human activity. Root damage translates to the entire tree and can ultimately cause tree death. Frequency of measurement Required equipment Every 2 years Tablet (on site data entry), camera Summary of methods: Exposed roots were measured within the activity area of campsites. A member of the research team evaluated the degree of root exposure according to the established criteria. Each site received one score for root exposure. Key findings: • The most common score for root exposure across campsite activity areas is 5. • Four campsites have no root exposure in their activity area, 42 campsites have mild to moderate root exposure, and six campsites exhibit significant root exposure (scores > 6) (Figure 5). This level of exposure poses a risk to tree health, as exposed roots are susceptible to damage from trampling by visitors. 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 Tops and sides of ≥ 3 major roots are exposed. 50% of both major and minor roots are exposed on top. Tops and sides of 2 major roots are exposed. Tops of < 5 major and minor roots are exposed. The top, sides, undersides of > 3 major roots are exposed. Over 50% of both major and minor roots are exposed on top. The top, sides, undersides of ≤ 3 major roots are exposed. 50% of both major and minor roots are exposed on top. Top and sides of 1 major root are exposed. Top exposure of > 3 of major and > 3 minor roots. Tops and sides of ≤ 3minor roots are exposed. Root top exposure of ≤ 3 major roots. The tops and sides of ≤ 3 minor roots are exposed. Only naturally exposed roots are visible. Figure 5. Root exposure scale from 1 (no exposure) to 8 (most severe exposure). The size of the image corresponds to the number of campsites with that score. 22 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Considerations: Human activity removes soil from the activity area, exposing tree roots which leads to risk for tree health.The Park could consider confining campsite activity areas to mitigate unnecessary damage. Clear borders around activity areas could be used to prevent the sprawl of damaged land. The Park could also reduce the use of a leaf blower in the activity area to allow for some natural coverage of roots and prevent pushing away detritus that will naturally decompose. In extreme cases, locally sourced substrates could be used to cover roots in the activity area. References: Reubens et al. (2007); Marion and Leung (2011); Mallikage et al. (2021) 23 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Human Markings on Trees Theme Parameter Cost Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact $ Description: Human markings are any unnatural physical damage that a tree has endured resulting from a human action. Markings include carving into wood (e.g. initials), hacking (e.g., axe marks), bark pulling, and branch pulling. This damages the tree and creates weak spots where bacteria can enter a tree and cause further damage. Frequency of measurement Required equipment Annually Tablet (on site data entry), camera Summary of methods: A member of the research team surveyed trees that lay within and along the boundaries of each campsite activity area were evaluated and assigned a score based on the extent of damage endured by the tree. The initial measurement of this indicator was taken by a member of the research team, and subsequent measurements will be carried out by park staff. Key findings: • 1 in every 2 trees along the edges of the campsite activity areas have human markings which were mainly of a severity of 3 or higher on a scale of 1-8 ( Figure 6). • Most campsites have at least 6 trees with markings (see Table SI 2). Figure 6. Scale to evaluate human markings on trees. A score of one represents no carvings, and a score of eight represents the most severe carvings. The size of each image corresponds to the number of trees with that score. 24 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Considerations: Human activities, such as ripping bark, snapping twigs, inserting nails, and carving into trees, can cause significant damage to trees. For instance, when boats are tied to trees bark often gets ripped off, which harms the trees. Several approaches could be used to mitigate this issue. For example, the Park could provide more kindling in firewood bags to reduce the temptation for clients to rip bark and break twigs from live trees. Additionally, the Park could establish permanent boat tying locations using anchor points drilled into or set up on rocks. References: Leung and Marion (1999); Morin et al. (2016) 25 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Ecosystem Status 32 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Edible Plants Theme Parameter Cost Ecosystem component Biodiversity $ Description: Edible plants are plants found in nature that are safe for human consumption. Foraging for wild edibles was a common source of food before the rise in agriculture, making them a traditional and culturally important aspect of human life. Wild edibles are a provisioning ecosystem service and are beneficial in many ways (i.e. economic value, provide people with a sense of place, recreation opportunity). Tracking and reporting the state of wild edibles that exist on campsites sets the stage for sustainable interactions between these plants and clients. Frequency of measurement Required equipment Every 5 years. Ongoing record from client observations. List of edible plants found in SouthWestern Quebec, camera Summary of methods: During the initial survey of each site, the research team used presence-absence surveying to record the occurrence of edible plants using a field guide and a list of known edible plants in the area. Key findings: • 28 species of edible plants are present at campsites managed by the Park (Figure 9). • Balsam fir is the most commonly occurring species of edible plants. • At least one species of edible plant was found at every campsite surveyed, and some campsites housed up to eight different species of edible plants. Balsam fir Found at 37 campsites Acorn Found at 15 campsites Blueberry sp. Found at 27 campsites Dandelion sp. Found at 13 campsites Eastern teaberry Found at 21 campsites Serviceberry Found at 13 campsites Wild sarsaparilla Found at 20 campsites. Juniper sp. Found at 10 33 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Figure 9. 28 species of edible plants found across Park campsites in order of greatest to least occurrence. Yellow clintonia Found at 8 campsites Beaked hazelnut Found at 4 campsites Elderberry sp. Found at 2 campsites Yellow trout lily Found at 2 campsites Morel sp. Found at 1 campsite Chaga Found at 7 campsites Clover sp. Found at 3 campsites Oxeye daisy Found at 2 campsites Bedstraw sp. Found at 1 campsite Red clover Found at 1 Campsite Strawberry sp. Found at 7 campsites Bunchberry Found at 2 campsites Pin cherry Found at 2 campsites Chanterelle Found at 1 campsite Sweet fern Found at 1 campsite Basswood Found at 5 campsites Common plantain Found at 2 campsites Raspberry sp. Found at 2 campsites Common bearberry Found at 1 campsite Sweet gale Found at 1 campsite 34 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Considerations: The edible nature of these plants exposes them to a risk of overharvesting. More detailed monitoring of the abundance of edible plants at Park campsites through time could help the Park better understand how clients are interacting with these species and determine if regulations would be appropriate to maintain healthy populations. Some examples of relevant regulations used in other contexts (e.g. by the SÉPAQ) include prohibiting visitors from harvesting plants or using quotas set by biologists to regulate harvesting levels. Such measures are an option for the Park, but given that recreational use only occurs in a small portion of the land the Park manages, it could instead prioritize educating visitors through blog posts and signage about edible plants and responsible foraging practices, unless significant degradation in diversity and abundance of edible plants is observed over time. References: Schulp et al. (2014); Sepaq (2024), Images in order of appearance: Price (2011); Van der Walt (2015); Benner (2009); Potterfield (2016); Mullen (2009); Dcrjsr (2014); Oregon State University (2013); Paw (2013); Under the same moon... (2013); Bowser (2017); Postbear (2011); Virens (2009); Howes (2013); Clover (2016); Sullivan (2014); Brewbooks (2006); Mike B. (2018); Krieger (2018); Kahvikisu (2006); Hodnett (2018); Hubers (2013); Björn S. (2017). 35 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Understory Vegetation Near Trails Theme Parameter Cost Ecosystem component Biodiversity $$ Description: Understory vegetation refers to the vegetation that grows between the forest floor and forest canopy. In this context, composition measures the number and type of species present within a defined area, and provides a measure of biodiversity. Recreational activities can decrease the viability of habitat, therefore, measuring the composition of understory vegetation surrounding trails offers information on how recreation impacts habitat quality. Frequency of measurement Required equipment Every 2 years GPS, survey markers, plant identification guide, tablet (on site data entry), 1m x 1m quadrat Summary of methods: A member of the research team surveyed understory vegetation using study plots that bordered established trails within each campsite. Three plots along a minimum of one established trail were evaluated per site. The vegetation within the plots was surveyed, and their information (i.e. richness, evenness, abundance) was recorded. Key findings: • Species diversity across campsites: • 15 campsites host 20 or more distinct understory plant species. • 6 campsites have 10 or fewer distinct understory plant species (Table SI 2). • Total unique understory plant species: • 110 distinct understory plant species were found across the Park’s campsites. • Most common understory plant: • Moss was the most common understory plant, with 7 different moss genera identified across campsites. • Comparison of control to near-trail plots: • There were 95 distinct species found across plots situated near campsite trails, compared to 85 species found in control plots situated in undisturbed areas beyond campsite borders. • Both plot types had the same top ten species, varying only in the order of occurrence. 36 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program 42 45 43 41 28 35 25 29 25 27 32 26 25 22 17 19 17 17 17 16 balsam fir broom moss sp. leafy moss sp. lichen moss red maple red-stemmed feather moss striped maple wild lily-of-the-valley wild sarsaparilla Plot Control Trail Figure 10. Diagram of the ten most common understory plant species (or genus when species was not identified) found at campsites. Green slices represent the number of campsites a given species was found at in control plots, and brown slices represent plots alongside campsite trails. Considerations: The Park could conduct a comprehensive understory vegetation inventory of campsites and islands to better understand the plant biodiversity these areas support. Creating a detailed database of plant species throughout the Park could help identify areas in the Park with species of status that are unsuited for recreational development, and contribute to broader biodiversity monitoring efforts across the province. References: Atik et al. (2009); Ballantyne and Pickering (2015); Abe et al. (2021) 37 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Concluding remarks The first year of data collected through the Poisson Blanc Ecological Monitoring Program provides valuable insights into both the current ecological state of the Park and its response to recreational use. This initial information not only helps to understand the present condition of the Park’s ecosystems but also establishes a reference point for future monitoring efforts. Over time, this reference data will enable the Park to track changes, identify emerging disturbances, and implement appropriate management interventions to protect the incredible biodiversity and natural resources supported by the area. The monitoring program focuses on 10 carefully selected ecological indicators, chosen for their ability to reflect the Park’s ecological status in the presence of recreation. The program is designed to be adaptable to both internal changes—such as management decisions—and external pressures, like climate change. A more comprehensive list of 84 potential ecological indicators, from which these 10 were selected, can be found in Supplementary Information Table 3. This broader list can be used and refined by other park managers interested in implementing their own monitoring programs. In this way, the program extends beyond the Poisson Blanc Regional Park, contributing to the broader effort to provide valuable resources for park owners dedicated to protecting their managed lands. Looking ahead, the Poisson Blanc Regional Park will continue its collaboration with the Watershed Stewardship Research Collaborative (WSRC) as new data is collected. The long-term nature of this program will provide valuable insights into the Park’s ecological status, guiding adaptive management decisions and ensuring the continued health and sustainability of the Park’s ecosystems. 38 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program References Abe, T., Kudo, T., Saito, K., Takashima, A., & Miyamoto, A. (2021). Plant indicator species for the conservation of priority forest in an insular forestry area, Yambaru, Okinawa Island. Journal of Forest Research, 26(3), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979 .2020.1858535 Alessa, L., & Earnhart, C. G. (2000). Effects of soil compaction on root and root hair morphology: Implications for campsite rehabilitation. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, & J. O’Loughlin (Eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference— Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management (pp. 99–104). Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Atik, M., Sayan, S., & Karaguzel, O. (2009). Impact of Recreational Trampling on the Natural Vegetation in Termessos National Park, Antalya-Turkey. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 15(03), 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarimbil_0000001098 Ballantyne, M., & Pickering, C. M. (2015). Recreational trails as a source of negative impacts on the persistence of keystone species and facilitation. Journal of Environmental Management, 159, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.026 Bengough, A. G., McKenzie, B. M., Hallett, P. D., & Valentine, T. A. (2011). Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: A review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62(1), 59–68. https://doi. org/10.1093/jxb/erq350 Benner, Bob Robert. (2009). Teaberry Plants. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mullica/3937275514. License: CC BY 4.0. Björn S. (2017). Chanterelle - Cantharellus cibarius [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr. com/photos/40948266@N04/. License: CC BY-SA 2.0. Bowser, M. (2017). Chaga [Photograph]. iNaturalist. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5109891. License: CC BY 4.0. Brewbooks. (2006). Sambucus racemosa (Red Elderberry) [Photograph]. Flickr. https:// www.flickr.com/photos/brewbooks/217464248. License: CC BY-SA 2.0. Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, S.C. 2021, c. 22. Retrieved from https:// laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ Carletto, C., Gourlay, S., Murray, S., & Zezza, A. (2016). Cheaper, faster, and more than good enough: Is GPS the new gold standard in land area measurement? World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7759 CBD. (2022). Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework: Draft decision submitted by the President (CBD/COP/15/L.25). Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/ e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf Clover white clover lawn [Photograph]. (2016). Pixabay. https://pixabay.com/. License: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Dcrjsr. (2014). Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_dandelion_Taraxacum_ officinale_flowers.jpg. License: CC BY 4.0. 39 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Government of Quebec. (2024). Quebec Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. Retrieved from https://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/eau/rsvl/methodes-en.htm#howeutro Hanna, D. E. L., Roux, D. J., Currie, B., & Bennett, E. M. (2020). Identifying pathways to reduce discrepancies between desired and provided ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101119 Hodnett, R. (2018). Yellow trout lily (Erythronium americanum) [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellow_Trout_Lily_%28Erythronium_americanum%29_-_Kitchener,_Ontario_02.jpg. License: CC BY-SA 4.0. Howes, T. (2013). Beaked hazelnut, California hazelnut - Corylus cornuta var. californica [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tlhowes/9114371770. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Hubers, L. (2013). Northern bedstraw [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsmtnprairie/. License: CC BY 4.0. Huijgens, B. (2016). Red clover flower, red flower [Photograph]. Pixabay. https://boudewijnhuijgens.getarchive.net/amp/media/red-clover-flower-red-flower-b0c114. License: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Jenkins, J. C., Chojnacky, D. C., Heath, L. S., & Birdsey, R. A. (2003). National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. Forest Science, 49(1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/49.1.12 Kahvikisu. (2006). Wild raspberries [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ karviainen/. License: CC BY 2.0. Krieger, M. (2018). Prunus pensylvanica [Photograph]. iNaturalist. https://inaturalist.ca/ photos/227276792018. License: CC BY 4.0. Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (1999). Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: Application of a problem-assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environmental Conservation, 26(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0376892999000399 Leung, Y. F., Newburger, T., Jones, M., et al. (2011). Developing a monitoring protocol for visitor-created informal trails in Yosemite National Park, USA. Environmental Management, 47(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9581-4 Mallikage, S. T., Perera, P., Newsome, D., Bandara, R., & Simpson, G. (2021). Effects of recreational camping on the environmental values of national parks in Sri Lanka. Tropical Life Sciences Research, 32(3), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.21315/tlsr2021.32.3.7 Marion, J., & Leung, Y.-F. (2011). Indicators and protocols for monitoring impacts of formal and informal trails in protected areas. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies, 17, 215–236. Marion, J. L., & Cole, D. N. (1996). Spatial and temporal variation in soil and vegetation impacts on campsites. Ecological Applications, 6(2), 520–530. https://doi. org/10.2307/2269388 Mattison, K. (2017). Morel mushrooms [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/69421573@N08/33923289323. License: CC BY 4.0. 40 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Mike B. (2018). Oxeye daisy [Photograph]. iNaturalist. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/13026303. License: CC BY 4.0. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (MELCC) and Conseil régional de l’environnement des Laurentides (CRE Laurentides). (2017). Water quality sampling protocol (4th ed.). Québec: MELCC and CRE Laurentides. ISBN 978-2-550-83587-5. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques. (2022). Guide d’interprétation de l’indice de la qualité bactériologique et physicochimique de l’eau (IQBP5 et IQBP6). Retrieved from www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/eau/ eco_aqua/suivi_milaqua/guide-interpretation-indice-qualite-bacteriologique-physicochimiqueeau.pdf Morin, R. S., Pugh, S. A., & Steinman, J. (2016). Mapping the occurrence of tree damage in the forests of the northern United States (NRS-GTR-162). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-162 Mullen, D. (2009). Northern red oak acorn [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/ photos/8583446@N05/3960213705. License: CC BY 4.0. Naturehopper. (2015). Sweetfern [Photograph]. iNaturalist. https://www.inaturalist.org/ observations/1635552. License: CC BY 4.0. Passioura, J. B. (2002). Soil conditions and plant growth. Plant, Cell & Environment, 25, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00802.x Paw, R. (2013). Juniper [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/rosipaw/9486307265. License: CC BY 2.0. Postbear. (2011). Wild strawberries [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ postbear/. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Potterfield, T. G. (2016). Aralia nudicaulis (wild sarsaparilla) [Photograph]. Flickr. https:// www.flickr.com/photos/tgpotterfield/30319474100/. License: CC BY 2.0. Price, H. E. (2019). Sweet gale (Myrica gale) - Cape St. Mary’s Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Sweet_Gale_%28Myrica_gale%29_-_Cape_St._Mary%27s_Ecological_Reserve,_Newfoundland_2019-08-10.jpg. License: CC BY 4.0. Price, H. E. (2012). Bunchberry [Image]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bunchberry_%286181531035%29.gif. License: CC BY 4.0. Price, H. E. (2011). Balsam fir needles (top) [Image]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Balsam-Fir-needles_%28t op%29_%28625545534%29.gif. License: CC BY 4.0. Oregon State University. (2013). Serviceberry [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr. com/photos/oregonstateuniversity/. License: CC BY-SA 2.0. Rando Québec. (2020). Normes en aménagement de sentiers: Chapter 3 (pp. 63–68). Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. ISBN 978-2-920793-37-8. Retrieved from https://www.randoquebec.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NormesEnAm%C3%A9nagementDeSentiers_web.pdf Reubens, B., Poesen, J., Danjon, F., et al. (2007). The role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and soil erosion control with a focus on root system architecture: A review. Trees, 21, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-007-0132-4 41 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Schulp, C. J. E., Thuiller, W., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowledge and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service. Ecological Economics, 105, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.018 Sepaq. (2017). Programme de suivi des indicateurs environnementaux des parcs nationaux du Québec: Rapport 2013-2017. Retrieved from https://www.sepaq.com/resources/docs/pq/pq_cons_rapport_psie_2013-2017.pdf Sepaq. (2024). Wildlife reserves. Retrieved from https://www.sepaq.com/rf/conservation. dot?language_id=1 Sullivan, S. (2014). Plantago major (common plantain) [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www. flickr.com/photos/wildflowersearch/. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Taylor, J. (2008). Common bearberry (“Kinnikinnick”, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) - fruits and leaves [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Common_bearberry_%28%22Kinnikinnick%22,_Arctostaphylos_uva-ursi%29_-_fruits_and_leaves.JPG. License: CC BY 4.0. Under the same moon... (2013). Yellow Clintonia (Clintonia borealis) [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/71119007@N03/. License: CC BY 4.0. Van der Walt, P. (2015). Wild blueberry bush [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/ photos/pavdw/19456699639/. License: CC BY 2.0. Virens (Latin for greening) (2009). Tilia americana - American basswood flowers and silvery-backed leaves [Photograph]. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/evelynfitzgerald/. License: CC BY 4.0. Water Rangers. (2024). Water Rangers key tests for water quality. Retrieved from https:// waterrangers.com/testkits/tests/?v=5435c69ed3bc Wilson, E. O. (2016). Half-earth: Our planet’s fight for life (1st ed.). New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company. Ziter, C., Bennett, E. M., & Gonzalez, A. (2013). Functional diversity and management mediate aboveground carbon stocks in small forest fragments. Ecosphere, 4(7), 85. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00135.1 48 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Erosion potential of a bank or tree Erosion potential evaluates the likelihood of collapse caused by erosion processes (e.g., rain, changes in reservoir water level, walking). Erosion potential of a bank or tree is assigned a score based on characteristics (e.g. Bank height, root density, surface protection). Erosion potential can be used to determine areas that should be blocked off from recreational use. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Roughness of trail surface Roughness of trail surface is evaluated based on the incline, ground cover, and obstacles of a trail. Knowing about this is important to preventing creation of informal trails because visitors avoid unfavoured trail conditions and are more likely to create their own tread. A ranking system is created to assign trails a value based on the overall roughness of a trail surface. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Occurrence of native species Native species are important to support because they developed in that specific habitat and support key relationships within a community. Disturbance to native species can disrupt processes like food chain dynamics and habitat availability. Their occurrence can be tracked using observational methods or surveying of specific areas. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Number of annual/weedy species Research shows that recreation favours the occurrence of annual and weedy species over woody and grass species. Measures of the prevalence of annuals and weeds can serve as an indicator of how recreation is influencing species composition. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Vegetation height Vegetation height is a measure of the average height of vascular plants for each site. This characteristic is important for light collection which provides energy, carbon storage ability, and supporting biodiversity. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Presence of saproxylic beetles Saproxylic beetles are dependent on deadwood for habitat nutrient provisioning. The presence of these beetles aid in decomposition processes and they often occur in areas of high deadwood diversity. Monitoring the presence of saproxylic beetles is helpful for determining the state of decomposition across a forest habitat. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Presence of wood living fungi Wood living fungi feed off the moisture within the trees they live off. This can induce tree rot and lead to decomposition. These fungi are an important part of decomposition processes, and monitoring the abundance and location of where they occur is important to deciding the health of a forest. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Volume of coarse woody debris (CWD) CWD is fallen dead trees and branches that remain on the forest floor or bodies of water. CWD provides habitat and contributes to nutrient cycling. CWD volume is determined by the diameter, decay state, and number of fallen trees. 49 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Plant litter cover Plant litter is dead plant material (fallen leaves, branches) on the forest floor. This decomposing material supplies energy and nutrients to heterotrophs throughout the ecosystem as it decomposes. Litter cover is a depth measurement that spans from the beginning of litter accumulation to the point of interaction with air. This is a valuable indicator to assess the decomposition rate. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Live tree carbon storage Carbon is taken out of the atmosphere when plants photosynthesize. This carbon then gets stored above and below ground. The amount of carbon a live tree can store is determined by its dry weight as half of it is carbon. Carbon stored by trees regulates atmospheric carbon to benefit air quality and climate stability. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Tree mortality Tree mortality is the occurrence of tree deaths. Naturally fallen trees promote ecosystem productivity by adding to the aboveground biomass and contribution to carbon flux. Tracking the occurrence of fallen trees provides a measurement of tree mortality. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Air pollution Air pollution causes poor air quality and has negative impacts on humans, animals, and plant species. The presence of certain species in an environment can indicate the presence of various known pollutants in the air (O3, NO2, CO). This information can then be used to identify the source of pollution and mitigate environmental damage. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Species rarity Species rarity is determined by the number of vulnerable species within an area. The occurrence of vulnerable species can be tracked using observational methods or surveying of specific areas. It is important to protect vulnerable species because they are most sensitive to disturbances (predation, climate change, human development) and provide specific benefits to ecosystems that are not replicated by other species. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Tree height Tree height can indicate ecosystem productivity (production of vegetation) by assessing the tree’s carbon storage capacity. Tree height is determined by vertical and angular measurements of the tree’s position. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Vegetation cover Vegetation cover measures the percent of soil that is covered by vegetation. High levels of vegetation cover are important for controlling erosion, water retention, surface energy exchanges, and supporting biodiversity. 50 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Age of canopy trees A tree canopy is the cover formed by the tops of trees. The age of canopy trees can be used to quantify species richness (e.g., the number of different species present within a given area). Age can also be used to estimate the regenerative state of a forest. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Basal area Basal area is the cross-sectional area of a tree at human breast height. This measure provides information about a tree’s age and health. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Canopy cover Canopy cover is composed by the type and amount of cover provided by trees making up the upper layers of the forest canopy. A healthy canopy contains various species, sizes, and shapes, this is known as structural diversity. High structural diversity provides habitats capable of supporting a wide variety of species. Measuring this provides information on the ecosystem’s health and capacity to support life. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Canopy stratification Canopy stratification explains the distribution of tree species throughout a forest at the canopy and understory layer. This information can be used to identify vulnerabilities within the ecosystem. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Deadwood continuity profile Measures the condition and amount of lying deadwood throughout a continuous forest section (stand). This unfragmented profile is created from regeneration, tree growth, tree mortality, and decomposition and is. Continuity better supports habitat for decomposers that are necessary for nutrient cycling. Monitoring this profile will track how Man-made features like trails and roads disrupt this continuity. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Deadwood diversity index The deadwood diversity index is a single indicator that combines information on the characteristics of deadwood (species, decay level, size). This indicator provides information on decomposition processes, habitat availability, and quality. Deadwood removal is damaging to these processes and monitoring this indicator will ensure deadwood is not removed liberally. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Deadwood volume Deadwood volume measures the amount of deadwood present on the forest floor. Deadwood is important for nutrient cycling, soil formation, and habitat provisioning. This indicator will ensure deadwood is not removed liberally. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Decay stage Decay stage is the extent to which a tree has undergone decomposition. Decay stage is evaluated based on 5 classes; stage 1 represents fresh deadwood and stage 5 represents complete decay. Monitoring this helps to understand nutrient cycling processes (decomposition, soil nutrient content) and indicate the health of a forest. 51 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Forest age Forest age can be measured as the average age of trees in a forest. This is done manually by counting tree rings or using technology to track land use changes. Because time allows for more biomass and species to establish in a forest, an older forest is typically capable of greater ecosystem function and provisioning services. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Forest density of trail surroundings The number of trees within a defined area makes up forest density. The presence of recreation can decrease the viability of habitat surrounding trails (trampling, noise pollution, harvesting). Measuring the density of forest around trails can provide information on how recreation is impacting habitat quality. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Forest edge density Edge density is the total length of edge divided by the total area of that ecosystem. Forest edges are most exposed to external pressures and cause for altered habitat along that boundary. Monitoring forest edge density can record how this changes over time to ensure the state of a forest edge remains stable. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Natural regeneration Natural regeneration is the process of restoring an ecosystem back to its original function. This strengthens the ecosystem and allows it to support more biodiversity and provide ecosystem services. This is measured by observing new growth within a forest area. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Presence of epiphytic lichen Epiphytic lichen are plant species that grow on other plants and collect nutrients from the atmosphere. Old growth forest stands have been found to have greater species richness of epiphytic lichen, and monitoring their occurrence can indicate the age of trees in the forest. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Tree recruitment Tree recruitment defines the rate at which trees are added to the population of existing trees and provides insight to the regeneration of an ecosystem. This is measured by tracking tree abundance and how it changes over time. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Soil acidity (pH) pH measures the acidity of a substance on a scale from 1-14 (low is acidic and high is basic) and soils with neutral pH (5.5-7.5) is ideal. The pH of a soil is important for nutrient solubility and availability to plants. Soil acidity can be measured by adding a reactant (baking soda) to soil, the reaction that follows determines whether the soil is acidic or basic. Monitoring this can track changes in soil and vegetation health over time. 52 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Soil class Soil classification groups soil types together based on chemical, physical, and biological properties. The parameters that define soil classes vary depending on the research intention, but typically cover ph, moisture, and nutrient content. Understanding the soil classes present in an environment provides useful information on a forest’s potential to support plant life. To monitor this, a soil classification system is adapted and applied to the area of interest and the occurrence of different soil types are mapped. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Water infiltration Water infiltration is the process of water entering the soil from the surface. It informs on how readily the soil can take up rainwater and is important for erosion prevention and overall soil stability. Ecosystem component Ecosystem status Area of wet soil The proportion of a given area that has wet soil (at a given depth) indicates water infiltration. This measures the rate at which water is taken up by soil and can influence the establishment of informal trails. Anthropogenic stressor Ecosystem status Trail soil erosion Trail soil erosion measures the volume of soil lost from trails. The degree of erosion on a trail is characterised by the amount of roots and rock exposed and its surface level compared to the surrounding habitat. Erosion is harmful to aquatic habitats (sediment deposits that disturb life) and terrestrial habitats (de-stabilize tree’s rooting systems). Measuring the level of erosion on a trail can identify problematic trails in need of management attention. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Anthropogenic disturbance area This measures the proportion of a given area (e.g., defined limits of a campsite) exhibiting clear impacts from visitors. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact The amount of man-made elements on a trail Man-made components such as trail borders, bridges, walkways, are common use when establishing trails. This would be measured by counting and measuring the extent of such man-made components across the park. Monitoring the extent to which they are used informs on the naturalness (how closely the trail resembles untouched forest) of the trail. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Garbage found on trails Garbage such as food wrappers, water bottles, and toilet paper, left behind by people, cause damage to wildlife through consumption. Monitoring this can support the establishment of signage or waste disposal along trails. 53 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Multiples traces Treads are markings in the ground created by visitor use. Multiple treads is a sign of informal trails created from recreation. Tracking where multiple treads occur will determine the need for preventative measures (trail signs, borders). Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Number of cut stumps A cut stump qualifies as any tree stump that has been clearly removed from human management. This is measured over a specified area to track the occurrence of tree removal. Trees are an integral part of ecosystem function and should be removed only under specific circumstances. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Signs of human use at campsites Signs of human use include damage to vegetation, barren land, informal structures (additional fire pits, trails, tent sites). The extent to which those features occur provide information on how destructive visitor behaviour is and can be used to implement management strategies to prevent direct harm to the environment. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Human markings on trees Human markings count as any unnatural physical damage that the tree has endured resulting from a human action. Markings include carving into wood (e.g. initials), hacking (e.g. ax marks), bark pulling, and branch pulling. This damages the tree and provides weak spots for bacteria to enter. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Social trails Social trails are those not formally constructed by park managers. Visitors have created their own paths which has increased the proportion of land disturbed as a result. It is important to track these trail establishments so that preventative measures (signs, clear formal trails, functional trails) can be taken to decrease the occurrence of barren land (land without vegetation). Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Tread incision Tread incision measures the degree (cm) to which an established trail sinks below the surrounding environment. This measurement is taken with a ruler and informs on the level the soil has compressed due to recreation. Monitoring this can indicate which trails are heavily used and damaging to the environment. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Removal of seedlings Seedlings arise from seed fall from mature trees. They are removed from trails to create a clear path for recreation. The surrounding soil is disturbed by the removal of seedlings. Removing seedlings sparingly is important to preserve the services that trees provide to an ecosystem (e.g., soil stability, carbon storage, habitat structure). Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Trail width The width of a trail is measured as the distance (cm) across the length of a trail that is not covered by vegetation and has a clear border created by recreational use or signage. Measuring this over time is important to ensuring that recreational use is not extending into unintended ecosystems. 54 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Deadwood removed Park staff remove deadwood (e.g., fallen trees, branches) from sites if it interferes with paths or the shoreline. Through monitoring the occurrences of removal, park management can decide if it is being done too frequently and determine a protocol for the appropriate instances of deadwood removal Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Litter at the campsite Garbage such as food wrappers, water bottles, and toilet paper, left behind by people, cause damage to wildlife through consumption. Monitoring this can support the establishment of signage or waste disposal along trails. Ecosystem component Direct human impact Percent impervious surface in watershed Impervious surfaces are those that water cannot penetrate (sidewalk, road, roof). This measures the impact of human created structures on aquatic habitats. Percent impervious surface in watershed can be measured by visual observation. A healthy ecosystem should have greater previous surface cover. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Forest fragmentation Fragmentation is the division of natural land, often caused by human development (roads, buildings, paths). Forest fragmentation can create patches of habitat that are too small to support the species within, increasing the ecosystems vulnerability to invasive species. Monitoring the extent of trails and infrastructure within a protected area is important to not create these inhabitable patches. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Campsite area (m2) It is important to measure campsite area to track change over time. Increases in site area over time indicate the sprawl of barren land (without vegetation). Campsite area can be broken into two parts: periphery area and activity area. The activity area is the part of a site with no vegetation cover and clear signs of human activity (e.g. Fire pit, tent platform, toilet). The peripheral area is part of a site that surrounds the activity area; it maintains some vegetation cover but there are signs of management. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Visitor encounters per hour The number of other visitors a group encounters can indicate recreational use. This can be measured by surveying guests after a stay or park staff can measure this based on encounters during daily tasks. Areas receiving more encounters can be flagged as areas more prone to human disturbance. This indicator can also indicate the visitor capacity of the park. 55 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Proximity to attractive features Distance to attractive features measures the distance from the centre point of a campsite to an attractive feature (toilet, look out spot, beach). These areas have a higher frequency of visitation due to their appeal and put additional pressures on the environment from increased recreation. Proximity can be measured as a distance (m) along a trail from campsite centre to the feature and can be used to evaluate which sites and pathways endure higher use. Information from this can be used to allocate monitoring resources and plan the next instalment of a feature to alleviate pressures from sites in proximity. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Bare roots on trail One way that tree roots become exposed is through erosional processes. Trail use (hiking, biking, ATV) disturbs the soil of a trail which exposes tree roots. Measuring the number of roots exposed along a trail can indicate the degree of soil erosion a trail has endured from recreational use. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Number of fire sites This indicator tracks the number of fire sites per recreation area. Informal fire sites can damage vegetation and soil quality. Measuring the number and location of occurrence can direct regulations to mitigating the effects that they have on the environment. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Opportunity to camp out of sight and sound of other groups The opportunity to camp outside the vicinity of other groups is when a perceived site exists and is isolated from other sites regardless of if the site is managed by the park. This indicator evaluates visitor preference and can determine the willingness of guests to follow park management regulations over site preference. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Trail borderline The trail borderline is the width of a trail that has no vegetation cover. Measuring this over time is important to ensuring that recreational use is not extending into unintended ecosystems. Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Soil compaction Soil gets compacted when pressure is applied to the soil surface, removing air spaces within a soil layer. Compaction makes it difficult for plant roots to grow and water to get absorbed. Human activity (walking, biking, driving) compacts soil and should be monitored to ensure the compaction takes place only in designated areas to avoid harm to surrounding habitats. Soil compaction can be measured by the soil density or by its resistance to penetration by either water or force (force required to push an object into the soil). Anthropogenic stressor Direct human impact Occurrence of obstacles on formal trails Obstacles (e.g., fallen tree, boulder, swamp) interfere with a visitor’s ability to continue on a trail. Informal trails are created to surpass the obstacle. The creation of the new trail disturbs the affected habitat. 56 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Ecosystem component Water quality Concentration of dissolved oxygen in water The amount of oxygen that has dissolved in a body of water and is available for aquatic organisms to utilise. Fish and other aquatic organisms require specific levels of dissolved oxygen for optimal living conditions (e.g., lake trout requires dissolved oxygen levels between 4 mg/L and 6 mg/L). Ecosystem component Water quality Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera (EPT) Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera are orders of stream insects that contain many different species. For example, a Mayfly is a species of Ephemeroptera. Insects from these three orders have low tolerance to pollution. This index measures the proportion of aquatic insects in each sampled area that are members of these three orders and serves as an indicator of the quality of the assessed water body. Ecosystem component Water quality Plankton abundance Plankton have two subgroups, zooplankton (animal) and phytoplankton (plant). Phytoplankton fix CO2 from the atmosphere and zooplankton consume the phytoplankton. Their abundance is measured by the biomass for a specified area (mg/L) or by counting their cell numbers (number/L). Healthy ecosystems require stable plankton abundance so that CO2 is fixed at a rate that does not deplete the aquatic ecosystem of available oxygen that other life forms (fish, seaweed, clams). Ecosystem component Water quality Suspended sediment concentration Suspended sediment concentration (SSC) is the quantity of mineral and organic particles (sediment) dislodged into a waterbody. This occurs from soil disturbance and storms. SSC is a measurement of the dry weight of sediment per volume of water and the concentration is determined through lab analysis of water samples. SSC is harmful to aquatic life and processes and prevents light penetration into the waterbody. Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Contamination degree indicators: PCBs, Hg, Cd, As, Cu, Pb, Cr, Zn Measures the concentration of toxic elements that accumulate in sediments at the bottom of the water to evaluate the water’s suitability for recreational use. Analyzing water samples will inform on the contamination of the water and identify any hazards that should be addressed. Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Hormone concentration in a waterbody Hormones found in water occur because of fecal and urinary contamination from animals and humans. These contaminants compromise the quality of water for life and recreation. Measuring this contaminant is helpful to maintaining water quality and determining any areas of high risk that need to be addressed. 57 Poisson Blanc Regional Park Ecological Monitoring Program Table SI 3. Continued Theme Parameter Specific indicator Description Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Nutrient (N, C, P) concentration in a waterbody Excessive nutrients in a waterbody causes eutrophication and can limit the amount of available oxygen for aquatic life. Nutrient concentration is determined through laboratory analysis of water samples. Results will track the water’s quality over time and decide the need for management intervention. Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Pharmaceutical concentration in a waterbody Humans use pharmaceuticals (e.g., bug spray, sunscreen, soap) that can contain harmful elements for the environment. These elements can be transferred to aquatic environments as they wash off into the water. It is useful to monitor their concentrations to track high incidence areas (highly contaminated) and ensure the habitat can support life. Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Fecal contamination of water Fecal coliforms (e.g., E. Coli) are bacteria that come from human and animal waste and can cause human illness if consumed. The quality of water is determined based on the concentration of these bacteria and whether there are any health risks associated with water use. Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Contaminants in water Contaminants are introduced to water bodies from human sources. Quebec uses an index to evaluate water based on the presence of major contaminants. The concentration of these measured contaminants determines the water’s safety for use (e.g. Drinking, swimming, aquatic life). Anthropogenic stressor Water quality Pathogen content soil around the toilet Fecal matter contains pathogens that can persist well after they are deposited if conditions are unfavorable (e.g., wet, cold, compact). Pathogen content poses a health risk as fecal matter decomposes and joins underlying soil. If the pathogens have not decayed, there is contamination risk to the surrounding soil and water.