Download interpretation of alpine areas for recreation: i. vegetati on

118
INTERPRETATION OF ALPINE AREAS FOR RECREATION:
I. VEGETATI ON
I. G. W. CORNS
ALBERTA INSTITUTE OF PEDOLOGY
PAPER PRESENTED AT:
WORKSHOP ON ALPINE AND SUBALPINE ENVIRONMENTS
VICTORIA) B.C.
APRIL
28-30) 1976
119
These activities have varying impact upon the vegetation (Wi lIard
and Marl'. 1970).
The increased awareness of the problems of expanding recreational
use of alpine areas has lead uS to seek measures by which damage to
them can be minimized.
Most research directed towards these
been conducted in the past 5 yesrs.
end~
has
Although much excellent background
There may be a loss of vegetative cover especially where
trampling by horses and people or disturbance by motor vehJcles is concerned.
There may be an attrition of plants to the point where reproductive processes
are suppressed.
Trampling and picking of flowers and fruits may result in
elimination of fragile species and their replacement by less spectacular
Trottier and Scatter (1973) suggest that weedy
research into characterizing alpine plant coonnunities and environments
weedy or graminoid species.
has been done prior to this (e .g. Bliss. 1962).
sp"cies may be introduced by feed for horses.
has been reviewed by Thilenius (1975).
Much north american research
My presentation will be limited
TIley also noted cover increases
.In species such as POOl alpina and Trisetum spicatum in same trampled
to an consideration of the various types of recreational disturbance in
alpine
alpine environments. their affect upon the vegetation and a review of
activities can thus result in change in species composition and even shifts
suggested recommendations as to how damage to alpine environments might
in species dominance (Willard and Marr, 1970).
best be minimized.
Ogilvie (1969) has described the sensitive nature of
the alpine vegetation.
In addition to its aesthetic value and scientific
areas in the Lake Louise. Alberta area.
Alpine recreational
Resource managersD1ust be
aware of the interdependence of soils and vegetation
Knapik and Lalldals (1974)
pointed out that 80110 will not erode unless the vegetations cover 18 removed,
interest. the vegetation of the alpine retards (natural) deterioration
and vegetation
of the soils by providing protective cover from rain drop slash. creating
trampled areas may take hundreds of years in Some places
organic matter. and turf to reduce erosion and improve soil structure and
by its root systems to increase porosity and thus permeability resulting
in less runoff and erosion (Helgarth. 1975).
will not recover if soils are eroding.
Complete recovery of
(Willard & Marr, 1971).
Several workers have divised scales for assessing degree of recreational
disturbance in alpine areas (Willard & Marr, 1970; Kuchar, 1972) and estimated
the length of time required to cauSe damage in various alpine ecosystems.
There are many recreational activities that may be regarded as
Wlliard & Marr (1970) dIscovered that the most compact cushion plants such
disturbances in the alpine and many have much more serious inpUcations
as Silene acaulis were most easily destroyed by trampling.
than others.
that 10-20 trips per season by one or more people did not create apparent
of flowers
Activities include: hiking. horsebsck riding, camping, picking
berries and stones, and driving in all-wheel drive recreational
vehicles (Willard and Marr. 1970; Ives, 1974).
Even Increased burrowing
'TIley also found
damage but trampling by hundreds of people in One area can destroy a fellfleld
ecosystem in twO weeks, a snowbed ecosystem in one to three weeks and a tllrf
by ground squirrels may be due to their being attracted by humans (Trottier
ecosyatea,
1n 8 weeks.
Damage was most entensive near parking areas and
and Scatter, 1973).
most damage was done when the vegetation was frozen and brittle.
Ecosystems
120
with high soil moisture were most easily dalMged followed hy tall herh
ecosystems then fellfIeld.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Turf types were the most durable.
Several authors have proposed useful recommendations for minimizing
Trottier (, Scatter (1973) dIscovered that some plant communities in
the !'Rke LouIse, AlbertR area were more susceptible to camping and trampling
than others.
'nley described several plant communities with the most
susceptible and most resistllnt species in each.
Vacciniu lll
~~oparium, ~llodoce
spp and
cover and flowering was impaired.
In the Lake Louise area
Antennaria lanata were reduced in
Bryophytes and lichens were very susceptible
damage to alpIne and other environments.
Willard and Marr (1971) suggested
that visitors should be channeled by trails to view points and other points
of interest such as snowbanks, as people will walk to these areas whether
there are trails or not.
They suggested too that trails should be wide
enough to allow at least two people to walk abreast.
Trotter and Scatter
to trllmp 1ing; CareK nigricans and Stellaria longipes appeared fai r ly resistant;
(1973) suggest limiting trail usage at times where damage is likely to be
and in many cases Sibbaldia procumbers,
greatest.
Phleum alpinum, Poa alpina and
Trisetum spicatum showed cover increases.
~_~e2'.
scripo: dea, Juncus
~rginiana
d~ruDDDondi.!.,
and Salix nivalis.
Other resistant species included
Ranunculus eschscholtzii, .!':ragaria
Kuchar (l972) used a modified WillRrd and
Lime and Stankey (1971) cited in Trottier and Scatter (1973)
stated that degredation of recreational sites may not necessarily be a
resllit of overuse Rnd suggest that in many cases rationing could be postpooef
by implementing intensive trail maintainance procedures including trail
Marr (1970) disturbance scale to rate II ecosystem types in the Maligne Lake
curbing,
area of Jasper Pllrk according to potential fragility and traIl durability.
behavior to reduce abuse.
North facing shruh-moss-reindeer ll.chen slopes were most fragile while
the Maligne
fellfield tundra Ilnd boulder rubble connnunities were lesst frRgile assuming
areas.
equal use intensities on each.
make visitors aware of sensitivIty through signs, brochures and oral11.
DIfferent potential fragility ratings were
artificial surfaces, zonIng, rotation use and by modifying vltltw
(~ke.
Kuchar (1972) made several recommendations fctr
Jasper Park area that might well be applied to other
These Include: stopping further development in sensitIve a reaa ,
pl~DU
rpcognlzed for the vegetation and for soil as it Rffected trail durability.
route trails through vegetation of low fragility, locate camp and
Knapik and Landals. (197 1,) rated plant connnunities for fragiUty ofter 100
areas where out of camp activities are hindered (Le. stay away froo B.a.
"'Rlks (assumed to be moderate use) in the Revelstoke Summit area of BritIsh
level, open terrain), limit or discourage visitor use of vegetation wbldl
ColumblR.
is rare and local in area, discourage unrestricted wandering in alptcw
Plant communities rated from most to least fragile were charActer-
ized by Vaccinum membranaceum, Valeriana
sitchensis,
I'.."..£t...inata And Carex nigricans respectively.
Cassi~
spp, Luetkea
areaS with good wide trails with scenic potential and finally monitor
visitor use In sensitive areas.
Disturbed mountain areas might b. ~
(Klock ~ aI, 1975) but use of natIve species is preferable to int'~
(Kuchar 1972) so that original community dynamics are
approximat~.
121
Inuttlizingalpine environments, we must use value judgment whether
REFERENCES
to channel use through entellsive but fragtle types or through rarer but
hardier types (Knapik and Landals, 1974).
Some resistant vegetutlon may
coincide with susceptibh: soils and these too musl ~e uvoided.
lead.
Bliss, L.C. 1962. Adaptations of arctic and alpine plants on to
environmental condl.tlons. Arctic 15: 117-144.
Helgarth, S.f.
1975. Trail deterioration in the Selway-8Irrerrn0[
Wilderness, USDA.
For. Serv.Res. Note. INT-193.
vegetation type has unique considerations such as trail grade, type of
deterioration, and period of use which must be considered before
Ives, J.P.
1974. Small scale examples: (2) The impact of motor
vehicles on the tundra envIronment.
In ArctIc and Alpine
Environments. P. 907-9\0.
J. D. Ives and R.C. Berry, eds. Methuen.
intensive recreational use upon that area 1s undertaken.
Klock, C.n., A. R. TIedeman and W. Lopushinsky.
1975. Seeding
rec.orrunendatlons for disturbed mounta.ln slopes in north ct!lltral
Washington, lISDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-244.
Knapik, L..I. and M.M. Landals.
1974.
Environmental fragll ity rating
In Knapik, L. and C.M. Coen.
1974.
Detailed soi 1 survey of the
Mount Rev"lsloke summit area.
Alberta Institute of Pedology Publ.
No. M-74-3.
Soil Rea. Inst. Publ. No. S04. l18p.
Kuchar, P.
1972. Ecological impact
of the Maligne Lake area, Jasper
National Park.
Unpubl.
Report to Parks Canada.
204~.
Lime
n.w.
and C.H. Stankey.
1971. Carrying capacity: Haintaining
outdoor recreation qua lity.
In Recreation Sympos ium Proceeding,
USDA. North Eastern Forest Exp. Stn.
Ogilvie, R.T.
1969. TIle mountain forest and alpine zones of Alberta.
pp 25-44. Tn Vegetat ion, Soils And Wildlife. J.E. Nelson and
M.J. Chambe7S. eds. Mehuem, Toronto.
'TIlilenius, J. F.
1975. Alpine range management in the Western United
States - Principle, practices and problems:
the status of our
knuwledge.
USDA. For Servo Res. Pap. RM-157.
Trottier, C.C. and C.W. Scotter.
1973. A survey of back country use
and the resulting impact near Lake Louise, Banff National Park.
Nat. & Hist. Parks Branch Calgary, Alberta.
Willard, II.E. and .l.W. Marr.
1970.
Effects of human activities on
alpine tundra ecosystems in Rocky Mountain National Parks,
Colorado, BioI. Conserv. 2:257-265.
Willard,II.E. and J.W. Marr.
1971.
Recovery of alpine tundra under
protection after damage by human activities in the Rocky Mountains
of Colorado.
BioI.
Conser. 3:181-190.