(A paper prepared as the basis for an oral presentation made to the Conference of the Parks and Research Foundation of Ontario, at University of Western Ontario, 2003 May 9.)

Abstract:
Natural landscapes in southern Ontario have been inventoried by identifying homogeneous ecological units. On this basis, ‘representative’ areas have been selected for protective management regimes. Unfortunately, this approach fails to recognize and assess complex ecological transition zones (ecotones). There is one such ecotone along the southern edge of the Canadian Shield (from southern Georgian Bay to the Frontenac Axis north of Kingston). Does existing land use management leave it vulnerable?

“Wisdom is to see things as they are” (‘Tadpole’, a movie).

The Problem
The inventory of ecological systems in Ontario and protection of areas representative of each ecological type nears completion. Has anything important been missed?
The inventory of ecozones, ecoregions, ecodistricts and so on has been prepared, based on a particular methodology, the hierarchical classification of homogeneous areas. Has the methodology led us to overlook any transition zones, or ecotones, as real ecological places?
Recent research on ecotones suggests that they may be more than difficult-to-classify landscapes between two regions. Exclusive use of the search for homogeneity would mean that heterogeneity, as an ecological value, would be overlooked. (Risser, 1995)

Some hypotheses
Three hypotheses can be proposed about one important natural landscape in Ontario – a unique ecotone.
1. There is at least one distinct landscape (along the southern edge of the Canadian Shield) that has been overlooked by the classification methodology common in Ontario. (It is so little recognized that it has no name. Call it The Land Between.)
2. The Land Between has a) ecological, and b) economic and social values that make it worthy of protection.
3. The Land Between is threatened by development by forces that are changing in kind and accelerating.

Ecotones
“Within the past two decades research has revealed a new dimension to ecotones. They are recognized as being dynamic components of an active landscape, frequently playing significant roles in supporting high levels of biological diversity as well as primary and secondary productivity; modulating flows of water, nutrients, and materials across the landscape; providing important components of wildlife habitat; and acting as sensitive indicators of global change.” (Risser, 1995, 324). Some are even characterized by their own unique ecological functions and biodiversity. That makes it valuable to identify an ecotone as an ecological entity. Some researchers have identified both scale and the pattern in the mingling of patches as important in determining how an ecotone behaves. (Risser, 1987). When the pattern is a heterogeneous mosaic it may escape a methodology seeking homogeneous units.
The prevailing view for 50 years to the 1980s was that ecotones are merely a composite of things sandwiched between homogenous ecological units. (Risser, 1995). Then, finding land in a transition zone that has more than x % of attribute ‘A’, could bring it into one adjacent class of landscape or the other. But that kind of classification may be misleading if the ecotone in fact has its own ecological structure, functions and rate of change.

Classification methodology – use and validity
The results of the methodology of classification of ecological areas matter, because they affect how people think about an area. The selection process for protecting areas under the Ontario Living Legacy program has been based on choosing representation of each identified homogeneous class. Representation of these homogeneous areas is sure to miss heterogeneity, a characteristic of some ecotones. The field guide for southern Ontario of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is an example of the approach. (Lee et al., 1998). Ecological land classification has been pursued this way in Ontario for over 40 years. (Riley and Mohr, 1994).
Validity of classification using a hierarchical search for homogeneous units comes entirely from whether it works for its purposes. If it fails to identify significant landscapes, as it does in at least one case, that simply means alternative analytical tools should be used, instead or as well.

An example – ‘The Land Between’

A distinct landscape - Where is it?

The land between northern forests and farms of southern Ontario lies on both sides of the contact zone of the Canadian Shield. Its surficial geological core is ‘granite barrens’ and ‘limestone plains’. They are the exposed bedrock borders of the Canadian Shield and the Great Lakes Lowland respectively. Figure 1 shows the location of these features.

Figure 1. ‘Granite barrens’ (dark gray) and ‘limestone plains’ (light gray). (Ministry of Natural Resources, GIS data for surficial physiography)

A distinct landscape - What is it?
The Land Between is a complex irregular-shaped strip, 240 km long by 20– 40 km wide. Its character as an ecotone is shaped by three fundamental transitions in
1.geology,
2.elevation, and
3.plant hardiness zones.

Geology
Looking at the geology complex, (Figure 2), we find three transitions in a narrow space. They are created by four areas of surficial geology. The core is two strips of different bare rocks (Precambrian and sedimentary Ordovician (Brownell and Riley, 2000)). Bare rock means < 15 cm average depth of soil cover. (Lee et al., 1998). The core lies between two kinds of till deposits (Canadian Shield with mineral till on the north and glacial deposits of the Great Lakes Lowlands on the south). The different chemicals and behaviours of the rock create differences in water and soil. Water and soil tend to be acidic in the granite barrens and the Shield (except where the rock is marble). The marble, the limestone plains and the southern glacial tills are alkaline. Both kinds of water are mixed in rivers flowing through.

Figure 2. Model of cross-section of surficial geology of The Land Between

Elevation
A change in elevation up the south slope of the Algonquin Dome coincides with the geological transition (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Elevation with ‘granite barrens’ (red outline) and ‘limestone plains’ (white outline) shown.

Plant hardiness
Plant hardiness Zone 4b in southern Ontario covers most of the core surficial geological elements (Figure 4). It reflects the changes in temperature and precipitation between Zones 4a and lower of the Shield and 5a and higher of the Great Lakes Lowlands.

Figure 4. Map of plant hardiness zones in relation to granite barrens and limestone plains. (Data from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)

Working together, these features make The Land Between a distinguishable ecotone - an identifiable entity

A distinct landscape - A mosaic, not a blend

Gosz suggests that to analyze physiography at an ecotone landscape level, use a wide view (Gosz, 1993.) In a scale of about 20 x 20 km squares, the physiographic picture of The Land Between is a mosaic. The core exposed rock is an east-west chain of low relief ‘granite barrens’ (mostly metamorphic rock, much of it gneiss) with strips and stepping stones of ‘limestone plain’ (including alvars) along the south side. Interruptions add to the irregularity of the core viewed from above – narrow north-south intrusions of thicker tills and lacustrine deposits from the regions north and south of it. The mosaic of The Land Between fits the complexity of Types 3 and 4 in the illustration of mosaic patterns in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Model of types of mosaic complexity of physiography.

Values worth protecting - Ecological: unique mosaic ecotone; biodiversity

Consider the ecotone as an entity, for its unique character and the resulting species diversity.
Theory and experience elsewhere suggest that a place with so many kinds of transition and such a pronounced mosaic will have unique ecological functions that make it a distinguishable ecological place. The mosaic juxtaposition of types of physiography makes the ecotone a place of edges. The complex changes in rock and soil types, the differences in wet/dry conditions, and the ph difference sharpen many edges of the mosaic. The mixture creates a diversity of habitat.
Species diversity in the 20 x 20 km plot, and often in a plot as small as 3 x 3 km, is an observable result. While alternating wet and dry conditions may be so harsh they limit species diversity within small patches, such as thin soil or bare rock, in a wider view, the ensemble of the mosaic probably enhances it. What is the evidence so far?
·

• Birds are viewed by some as a good indicator of species diversity – more bird species, more diversity of all kinds.
  “… (In) the area between Kingston and the southern end of Georgian Bay…the number of species found is exceptionally high.” (Cadman et al., 1987, 29)
  
• The ‘granite barrens’ are “part of a landscape that does have a high level of biodiversity. As many as 500-600 species of vascular plants may be represented within an area of several square miles.” (Catling and Brownell, 1999, 402)
  
• The Land Between is the northern limit for some species and the southern limit for others; and contains Atlantic Coastal Plain and Prairie species in patches and species at risk. (Reid and Bergsma, 1994)

Values worth protecting - Economic and social values

Important economic and social activities depend on maintaining natural characteristics of The Land Between. Tourist resorts and services to cottages are central to the economies of nearby towns. Although the transition zone is south or north of much of ‘cottage country’, cottages are its dominant settlement type. There are a few villages or hamlets, mostly along the edges. In many municipalities the number of seasonal residents far outnumbers permanent ones. Both residents and visitors use the area for most outdoor recreational activities a natural area can provide. There is some forestry, mining and a little trapping.
The Land Between is an economic and cultural amenity for residents in towns nearby and in cities 1½ to 2 hours drive away – Greater Toronto Area, Barrie, Kingston and Ottawa.

Threats - development

Bedrock covered with thin soil has low (limestone) or very low (granite) absorptive capacity. Small bodies of surface water make water quality vulnerable.
An increasing proportion of a growing population will bring more people to The Land Between. Two forces cause this:

1. Population in the four urban centres mentioned is forecast to grow by 1.5 million people by 2015. (Compilation of data from Ministry of Finance.) Foot and Stoffman predict that the combination of this population growth and changes in demographic mix means that, while “only 8% of households own a leisure property, that percentage will increase”. (Foot and Stoffman, 1998.) Recreational visits will similarly increase.
   
2. Retiring baby boomers, and some before retirement, will increasingly make their permanent homes in The Land Between, thus increasing the quantity and kind of development. For example, on one typical lake, the proportion of year-round residents has increased from about 1% of total cottages twenty years ago to over 10% today.
   Is there a tipping point after which this sparsely settled landscape quickly loses its remaining naturalness? If so, where is it? How close are we? Protective action is likely urgent. The cumulative effects of land uses damage the ecotone’s wilderness character. Among them are road access, larger building footprints, dammed watercourses, golf courses, shoreline modification, motorboat wakes, ATVs, lawns, pesticides, herbicides, septic beds, escaped cultivated plants and so on.

Threats – no coherent land use management

Unfortunately, there is no coherent land use management scheme to give priority to environmental protection of The Land Between as an entity. The forces of population change are unavoidable, but development can be steered. Both land use management that gives priority to environmental values and environmental education for users can reduce harm to the environment.
Ownership and stewardship are fragmented. About 60% of the area is in private hands. The Government of Ontario owns most of the remainder, of which about half, in homogeneous patches, is protected in Parks and Conservation Reserves. There are signals MNR may dispose of the unprotected parts. (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2003, Section 6.1.6.) Even land trusts look only at their own small pieces, without consideration of the whole.

Threats - Low recognition

The Land Between suffers from low recognition so it was easy to overlook in classifying Ontario’s ecology and in anyone’s land use management. It does not even have a name. Three reasons for low recognition are worth mentioning, in order to understand partially why deeper questioning has not occurred and why there is no land use plan for the landscape as an entity:

1. After 1854, the Colonization Roads were built on a north-south axis. Transportation, economic, social development, and culture followed. That kept residents from looking east and west.
   
2. The landscape is a small part, in population and area, of each of the eight ‘county’ jurisdictions it passes through, usually at one of their edges. So, there is little incentive for local politicians or planners to pay much attention to it or, especially, to recognize it as part of a larger landscape. Similarly in Provincial administration there is marginal attention to it because it straddles the border of MNR’s ecoregions (5E and 6E) and several of its administrative districts and, now, of Ontario’s Smart Growth Regions.
   
3. Only recently has satellite imagery allowed us to ‘see’ the core of this remarkable ecotone lying across Ontario.

Conclusions

Hypotheses reasonable

The description of The Land Between suggests the hypotheses are reasonable and merit formal testing:

• a distinguishable transitional landscape that has not been identified by Ontario’s classification methods;
  
• valuable ecologically, economically and socially; and
  
• with threats to its natural character
  

Now that we have both the theory and the technology to help us see The Land Between, can we continue to ignore it?

Further studies

The analysis above invites research to test these hypotheses or related ones. Natural science questions about this landscape leap out, especially looking at it as an ecotone – characteristics (inventories, structure, functions, processes, change, appropriate scale for analysis and so on); comparisons with other ecotones; and natural values that are worth protecting. What is the occurrence and distribution of species at risk within it? What is the state of biodiversity here? Does The Land Between work as a wildlife corridor? What roles does it play for water? Is there a tipping point?

There is plenty for research in other disciplines or in multidisciplinary studies:

• What are the population and development pressures and their effects? What will happen as pressures grow? What is the nature and prognosis of damage? Which are the damaging uses and which are benign?
  
• With existing land use management, what are the economic values of the landscape as an entity, now, and 10 or 20 years on? What alternative management regimes are available? Which uses are compatible and which must be separated, or even prohibited in some places? To what extent are highways, existing or planned, a barrier to wildlife? Can that be reduced?
  
• Who benefits and who loses from coherent land use management? How do industrial uses of the landscape (forestry, mining, quarrying) fit in?
  
• What are the ecological boundaries? For land use management there are also economic, social and political issues to consider in setting boundaries and zones for uses. How would First Nations claims and interests affect boundary choices?
  

The Land Between might be a useful ‘canary in the mine’ for global warming. Some species or systems might be indices because they are under a degree of stress from living on edges.

Special legislation in Ontario guides development in the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine as these landscapes cross regional, county and other municipal jurisdictions. What can be learned from the social and political processes which led, over about 20 years each, to final legislation? How is it working?

The Land Between is an abrupt mosaic ecotone in southern Ontario. It still retains a degree of wilderness. The impending pressures for development make it urgent for numerous studies to be done as quickly as possible, if they are to be useful in changing to coherent land use management for The Land Between.

Acknowledgements

This paper is a by-product of an effort by the author to gain recognition and protection for a special place. Many people are bonded to The Land Between emotionally and in their lives. But we had no language for discussing its ecological complexity. Special thanks go to Muldrew Lakes Cottagers’ Association, which financed most of the expenses of an effort to start the protection process; and to its Environment Committee which gave its time, encouragement and insightful criticism. Thanks also to Duncan Rowe, a Turtle Lake cottager and professional mapper, who produced the maps.

In uncovering the scope of the transition zone that is The Land Between, I owe thanks to many others, who in varied ways made these insights possible:

• Staff of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, municipal officials and councillors who gave generously of their time and information to an unknown citizen;
  
• landowners (cottagers, anglers and hunters, and forest managers) who shared their views about their love of The Land Between;
  
• Ron Vrancart, Chair of the Oak Ridges Advisory Panel, and Debbe Crandall, a member of the Panel and a leader in STORM, for advice, warnings, challenges and encouragement early in the study;
  
• Bob Bowles, Judi Brouse, Duncan Cameron, Bill Dickinson, Tom Hutchinson, Dennis Jelinski, John Marsh, Gray Merriam, Ron Reid, John Riley, and Karl Schiefer, who with patience showed pathways and offered more challenges; and
  
• Fred Helleiner, Daphne Alley, Hugh Alley and Tom Alley, for helpful suggestions, which I hope they will recognize in the text, and for attentive reading.
  

The interpretations and errors remain mine.

References

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Plant hardiness zones” from http://map1.agr.ca/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Plant2000&Cmd=Map&Lang=En.

Brownell, V.R and J. L. Riley. 2000. The Alvars of Ontario, Significant Alvar Natural Areas in the Ontario Great Lakes Region. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

Cadman, M. D., P. F. J. Eagles and F. M. Helleiner, 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory, University of Waterloo Press.

Catling, P. J. and V. J. Brownell. 1999. “The Flora and Ecology of Southern Ontario Granite Barrens”. In Savannas, Barrens and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America. R. C. Anderson, J. S. Fralish and J. M. Baskin (eds). Cambridge University Press, 392-405.

Chapman, L. J. and D. F Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto.

Foot, D. K. and D. Stoffman. 1998. Boom, Bust & Echo 2000; How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift in the New Millennium. McFarlane Walter & Ross, Toronto.

Gosz, J. R. 1993. “Ecotone hierarchies”. Ecological Applications. 3 (3): 369-376

Lee, H. T., W. R. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application, SCSS Field Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development Transfer Branch.

Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2002. Population estimates compiled from data at www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/demogeng.htm .

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003 May. “Approved Land Use Strategy”, Section 6.1.6. at http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/supportingdocs/alus/landuse6.htm

---------- GIS data provided for physiographic regions.

Reid, R. and B. Bergsma, 1994. Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka, Muskoka Heritage Areas Program. A project of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Muskoka Heritage Foundation.

Riley, J. L. and P. Mohr, 1994. The natural heritage of Southern Ontario's settled landscapes: a review of conservation and restoration ecology for land-use and landscape planning. Aurora: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southern Region.

Risser, P. G. 1987. “Landscape Ecology: State of the Art”. In Landscapes, Heterogeneity and Disturbance. M. Goigel Turner (ed). Springer-Verlag New York. 3-14.

--------------- 1995. “The Status of the Science Examining Ecotones”. Bioscience, 45(5): 318-325.

For more information about current Conservancy projects and activities, please contact us:

The Couchiching Conservancy
Box 704, 1485 Division Road West
Orillia, Ontario
L3V 6K7

Contact the Conservancy at:
(705) 326-1620
nature@couchconservancy.ca