Ecological Restoration
Masters Biodiversity Spain
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Ecological Rest. 26(2):120-127 (2008); doi:10.3368/er.26.2.120
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corry, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

CASE STUDY AND RESEARCH REVIEW

Using Landscape Context to Guide Ecological Restoration: An Approach for Pits and Quarries in Ontario

Robert C. Corry, Raffaele Lafortezza, Robert D. Brown, Natasha Kenny and P. Jill Robertson


    Abstract
 TOP
 Abstract
 References
 
The landscape has a dramatic effect on a site’s ecological and social function. Landscape context and pattern are important considerations in ecological restoration for their effects on rehabilitation design and ecological function. In Ontario, Canada, there are more than 5,300 active aggregate mining sites, equivalent to a total area of over 70 square kilometers. Rehabilitation of inactive pits is required by law, but rehabilitation efforts rarely attempt to restore ecological function to a site, and even more rarely consider the ecological implications of landscape context. The size, spatial extent, and nonrandom distribution of aggregate extraction sites in Ontario offer opportunities to restore ecological functions through cooperative rehabilitation, where landowners and licensed aggregate extractors try to achieve better ecological outcomes. In order to illustrate how landscape context can make a meaningful contribution to rehabilitation design and ecological restoration of pit and quarry sites in Ontario and in other settings, we review methods of assessing critical aspects of landscape context, including patterns of habitats (mosaics), interpatch movements and dispersal (connectivity and permeability), and the heterogeneity of microclimates (niche diversity). We illustrate the potential of this approach with the example of the Karner blue butterfly. The described project may inform restoration approaches for other land uses and landscape contexts.

Keywords: aggregate (gravel) extraction, cost-surface analysis, Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), landscape pattern metrics, microclimate


    References
 TOP
 Abstract
 References
 

Adriaensen, F., J.P. Chardon, G. De Blust, E. Swinnen, S. Villalba, H. Gulinck and E. Matthysen 2003. The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:233–247.[CrossRef]

Aggregate Resources Act. 1990. Revised Statute of Ontario, c. A.8.

Botequilha Leitão, A. and J. Ahern 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:65–93.[CrossRef]

Bowles, M. and M. Jones 2007. The prairiewetland vegetation continuum in the Chicago region of northeastern Illinois. Ecological Restoration 25:29–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Boyonoski, A.M. 1992. Factors affecting the establishment and maintenance of Lupinus perennis (wild lupine). M.S. thesis, University of Guelph.

Browning, M.H.R. and M.J. Tan. 2001. Rehabilitation of aggregate extraction sites: Opportunities for establishing native ecosystems. Ontario’s Living Legacy Science Report OLL RT.REC 104.04.

Cameron, M.A. 2007. A metapopulation approach to recovery of the five-lined skink using rehabilitated aggregate extraction sites. M.L.A. thesis, University of Guelph.

Chan, P.K. and L. Packer 2006. Assessment of potential Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) (Family: Lycanidae) reintroduction sites in Ontario, Canada. Restoration Ecology 14:645–652.[CrossRef]

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The physiography of southern Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Geological Survey.

Corry, R.C. and J.I. Nassauer 2005. Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landscape and Urban Planning 72:265–280.[CrossRef]

Environment Canada. 2006. Species at risk: Karner blue butterfly. www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=293

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grundel, R., N.B. Pavlovic and C.L. Sulzman 1998a. The effect of canopy cover and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Oecologia 114:243–250.[CrossRef]

Grundel, R., N.B. Pavlovic and C.L. Sulzman 1998b. Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: The influence of canopy cover. Biological Conservation 85:47–53.[CrossRef]

Gustafson, E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156.[CrossRef]

Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49.[CrossRef]

Hobbs, R.J. 1999. Restoration ecology and landscape ecology. Pages 70–77 inJ.A. Wiens and M.R. Moss Issues in Landscape Ecology. Guelph, ON : The International Association for Landscape Ecology.

King, R.S. 2003. Habitat management for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Ecological Restoration 21:101–106.[Free Full Text]

Knutson, R.L., J.R. Kwilosz and R. Grundel 1999. Movement patterns and population characteristics of the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Natural Areas Journal 19:109–120.

Konecny, A. 1986. A status report on the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov) in Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Lafortezza, R. and R.D. Brown 2004. A framework for landscape ecological design of new patches in the rural landscape. Environmental Management 34:461–473.[Medline]

LaGro, J.A. 2001. Site Analysis: Linking Program and Concept in Land Planning and Design. New York: John Wiley.

McGarigal, K., S.A. Cushman, M.C. Neel and E. Ene 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

Oke, T.R. 1987. Boundary Layer Climates. London : Methuen.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant wildlife habitat technical guide. MNR #51438. www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/pubs/wildlife/swhtg/SWHTG.PDF

Opdam, P. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: A review of holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology 5:93–106.[CrossRef]

Packer, L. 1994. The extirpation of the Karner blue butterfly in Ontario. Pages 143–151 inDA Andow, R. J. Baker, and C.P. Lane Karner Blue Butterfly: A Symbol of a Vanishing Landscape. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press.

Perlman, D.L. and J.C. Milder 2005. Practical Ecology for Planners, Developers, and Citizens. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Peterson, R.K. D., S.J. Meyer, A.T. Wolf, J.D. Wolt and P.M. Davis 2006. Geneticallyengineered plants, endangered species, and risk: A temporal and spatial exposure assessment for Karner blue butterfly larvae and Bt maize pollen. Risk Analysis 26:845–858.[CrossRef][Medline]

Rabe, M.L. 2001. Special animal abstract for Lycaeides melissa samuelis (Karner blue). Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

Roush, S.A. and J.P. Amon 2003. Repopulation of restored wetland habitat by Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). Ecological Restoration 21:174–179.[Free Full Text]

The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation. 2004. Mineral aggregates in Ontario: Production statistics 2004.

Turner, M.G., R.H. Gardner and R.V. O’Neill 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process . New York: Springer-Verlag.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003. Final recovery plan for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Ft Snelling, MN: USFWS.

Zimmerman, K. and S.B. Lowe 2001. A vision of what’s to come: Results of rehabilitation at Dufferin Aggregates’ Milton quarry. In Proceedings of Leading Edge 2001, held in Burlington, ON, October 17–19. www.escarpment.org/leading_edge/LE01/index-le01.htm





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corry, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Robertson, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Copyright 2008 by The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System