Bio-Physical Land Classification in Canada

29/
Bio-Physical Land Classification in Canada
M . JURDANT, D. S. LACATE, S. C. ZoLTAI,
G . G . RUNKA, and R. WELLS
THE CONFLICT between resource development and environmental quality
has its roots in the concept that the environment consists of resources created
for man's exclusive use. Recent questioning of this attitude has resulted in a
focusing of environmental and ecological research on the control of pollution
rather than on the examination of (a) whether or not the proposed resource
developments should be initiated, and (b) what are the alternatives available
within the ecological system for the proposed resource development scheme.
To improve the quality of the environment, man must realize that he is but
one part of the ecological system and that the natural resources cannot be
abused and squandered. Careful long-term environmental planning becomes
the focus and prerequisite for the development of a better environment in
which potential pollution problems are identified very early in the decisionmaking process. Proposed development programs can then be evaluated, not
only from the standpoint of "how can the environmental impact be
ameliorated once a program is initiated", but more importantly, "from an
environmental standpoint, how should the program proceed?".
Land management and land-use planning for developing a better environment must, therefore, be based on an understanding of the overall structure
and functioning of the natural ecosystems. These ecosystems must be
understood at various levels of integration (14), from the entire biosphere
down to a sugar maple-yellow birch community on a specific site. One of the
essential frameworks for environmental management, therefore, is an
inventory of ecosystems at a level, and at a scale and intensity, appropriate to
the management objectives.
M. Jurdant. S. C. Zoltai, and R . Wells are R esearch S cientists, Canadian Forestry S ervice,
respectively located at the Laurentian Forest Research Centre , Ste. Foy , Que. , the N orthern
Forest Research Centre, Edmonton, Alta., and the Ne wfo undland Forest R esearch Centre, St .
John 's , Nfld. D. S. Lacate is R egional Director, Lands Directorate, Canada Dept. of the
En vironment , Vancouver, B.C. , and G. G. Runka is S oils S cientist, British Columbia Land
Commission , Burnaby, B.C.
485
486
JURDANT. LACA TE. ZOLTA I. RUN KA . AND WELLS
History of Ecosystem Classification in Canada
In Canada, ecosystem classifica tions we re initially de ve lo ped on the ba sis
of a variety of criteria ranging from purely phytosociological to purely
physical (I , 15). A common platform was reach ed thro ugh the National
Committee on Forest Land s when a subcomittee on bio-physical la nd
cl assifica tion was created in 1966 which proposed the undertak ing of pilot
projects in British Columbia, Manitoba , Quebec, N ova Scotia , a nd Newfoundland. The result was the publica tion of guidelines for a bi ophysica l la nd
class ifica tio n (13), with emph asis on th e development of a methodology for
reconn a issance surveys to provide an overview a nd in ventory of forest land
and associa ted wildland resources. The va lue of this type of inventory is that
it can bring together information for la rge inaccessible regions an d identify
th ose areas where more detail m ay be needed in the future.
A bio-physical classificati on provide s a n ecological basis for la nd -use
pla nning (9), since it provides a geographical framework for the system at ic
study of ecosystems and the extrapolation of the resulting knowledge. Thi s
information can serve as a framework for the assessment of reso urce
ma nagement progra ms, environmental impacts, and long-te rm environmental research requirements.
Objectives of the Bio-Physical Land Classification System
The objectives of the bio-ph ys icalland cla ssification are:
I) To describe and characterize the biological and physical fe a tures of the
land and to organize knowledge into a useful fra mework for the ma nagement
of the land. This includes the classification and ma pping of th e following :
climatic regions
geology
phys iography and landforms
texture, petrography, and depth of the surficial geological materials
soil
physical, chemical , and biological characteristics of wa ter bodies
structure, physiognomy, and composition of vegetation
succession of vegeta tion (ch ronosequences) .
In order to obtain a thorough understanding of relationships between the
living (flora, fauna, man) and the non-living (land, water, climate) environment, emphasis is given to features having the highest degree of interrel a tionship .
2) To interpret and evaluate the biological productivity, based on identified bio-physical units and characteristics of the land, to provide the
resource manager with data for planning land use or development.
BIO-PHYSICAL LAND C LASSIFICATION
487
3) To provide a comprehen sive and integrated geographical explanation of
the environment, leading to an understanding of the interrelationships
between living and non-living parts.
Concepts
Va rious concepts have influenced the bio-physical land classification
system . The Australian system (3, 4, 5, 6) and the Ontario system (7, 8) can
both claim parental rights, but the influence of many other workers is also
evident; among these are the soil scientists of the Canadian Soil Survey
Committee (2, 18) and Rowe's concepts on ecosystems (15).
The various pilot studies conducted in different environments throughout
the country have had major inputs into the present Canadian viewpoint on
bio-physical land classification.
The philosophy of the classification system rests on the recognition that,
although all environmental factors (landform, climate, organisms, soil, and
ground water within a framework of time) influence each other, the
landforms (including structure and composition as well as form of terrestrial
and water bodies) influence the other factors to a far greater degree than they
are influenced by them . Thus, landform classification and mapping are the
framework within which climatic, vegetational, pedologic, and hydrologic
data are described, characterized, and classified .
The Levels of Ecological Integration
·.
The inventory of ecosystems must be made at different scales and
intensities to serve the environmental planning objectives for different levels
of social organization and institutions: the country, the province, the socioeconomic region, the city or municipality, the family.
A hierarchical system is therefore needed which permits a choice of the
degree of detail required to meet the purpose of a particular survey. The
following five levels of ecological integration are now recognized; they are
listed from the more general to the more specific (Table I):
Land Region: an area of land characterized by a distinctive regional climate
as expressed by vegetation . The mapping scale is in the order of I : 1,000,000
to I : 3,000,000. Regional vegetation and physiographic pattern are the major
differentiating mapping characteristics, although complexes of landforms
and of soil characteristics (e.g. permafrost) are also used as indicators.
Climatic data are used to characterize the mapped units infrequently, partly
because of the scarcity of data throughout most of Canada, partly because of
the very limited knowledge on the significance of climatic data for various
"""
00
00
Table I. Levels of ecol ogical integration of a bio-physicalland classification
LEVEL OF INT EG RATION
2
3
4
5
Land Type
Land Phase
BIO-PHYSI CAL U IT
SCALE
Land Region
1/ 1,000,000
1/ 250,000
1/ 125,000
1/ 20,000
1/ 10.000
H UMAN COM MUN ITY
OF REFERENCE
Country
Province
Regi on
Municipality
Family
MOST ACT IVE ECOLOG ICAL VARIAB LES
Regional
climate
Phys iogra phy
Landform
Soil and
topog raph y
Man . mic roclim ate a nd
disturbances
La nd District
Land System
'-
c
CRITERIA OF DIFFERENT IATION a
Regio na l climate
H
H
H
H
H
Relief
P
H
H
H
H
Bedrock geo logy
X
P
H
H
H
Landform s
X
P
P
H
H
'"
0
»
Z
;-I
r
»
»
()
-I
!"
N
0
r
-I
»
:-
P
P
H
H
Soil developme nt
X
P
P
H
H
Vege ta ti on ch ronosequence
X
P
P
H
H
Soil thickness, texture ,
and petrog ra phy
X
P
H
H
0
Soil moisture regi me
X
P
H
H
Surface organ ic ho rizon
X
X
H
m
r
r
Phys ionomy and stru cture
of vege tati on
X
X
H
Compositi on of vege tati on
X
X
H
Topographic position
a
H ; Criteria ho mogeneous throughout the unit :
P : C riteria wh ose di stributi on is organized : a patrern :
X : Criteri a wh ose di stri buti on is erratic : a co mplex.
'"cz
'"
1>
»
z
~
Ul
BIO-PHY S ICA L LAND C LASSIFIC ATION
489
management uses, and partly because many elementa ry, but important,
climatic-bio-physical interrelationships are not clearly understood .
Land District: an area of land characterized by a distinctive pattern of relief,
geology , geomorphology, and associated regional vegetation. This is the level
which corresponds most closely with the notion of "pays ", or " terroir" , or
"landscape " . The mapping scale is I: 250,000 or I : 1,000,000. The Land
District is a subdivision of the Land Region .
Land System: an area for which there is a recurring pattern of landforms,
soils, and vegetation chronosequences. Some surveys have added patterns of
water bodies in the definition of the Land System (11), others have grouped
Land Systems and water bodies into broader units called "Landscape Units"
(19). The mapping scale is I : 100,000 to 1 : 250,000. This is the working level
of most of the reconnaissance bio-physical surveys completed to date in
Canada . Land Systems can be viewed as a subdivision of a Land District or
as a characteristic pattern of Land Types, the next lower level of ecological
integration.
Land Type: an area of land having a fairly homogeneous combination of
soil (e.g. Soil Series) and chronosequence of vegetation . It is the basic
ecological cell of the bio-physical classification, the one upon which most of
the biological productivity and other interpretive ratings can be made . They
can be delineated at scales ranging from I: 10,000 to I : 60,000.
Land Phase: an area of land having a fairly homogeneous combination of
soil and vegetation . It is a subdivision of the Land Type based on the stage of
vegetation succession as expressed by the existing vegetation at the time of
the survey .
Methods
,
.
Most bio-physical surveys to da te in Canada have been underta ken at a
relatively small scale or reconnaissance level (1 : 125,000), mainly to serve as
the ecological basis for regional land use planning. In spite of considerable
variation in methods, related to the nature of landscapes, and of availability
of specialists in the survey teams, all pilot projects showed a successful
application of the guidelines as outlined by the National Committee on
Forest Lands. The guidelines were intended to be only a preliminary
framework which would be revised and modified as indicated by the
participants in the various pilot projects.
The system is now beyond the stage of pilot projects and is in the
operational stage in several regions . The following is an attempt to
summarize the method in the light of recent surveys in British Columbia (16),
Manitoba (19), Ontario (9), Quebec (10, II), Labrador (12) and Newfoundland (17).
490
JU RDANT, LA CAT E, ZOLTAl , RUN KA , AND WE LLS
I) The basic bio-physical classification is derived from an a priori
integra tion of the knowledge of climate, geology , geomorphology, soils , and
vegeta tion collected by a team of specialists in various disciplines working
together in the field and in the office. The a priori integra tion is preferred to
an a posteriori integration commonly obtained by superimposing sectorial
m a ps (geomorphology, soil, vegetation, etc.) which are not only more
expensive to produce, but create complications due to minor variations in
unit boundaries developed independently by each discipline .
2) Pre-field interpretation of small-sca le aerial photographs is undertaken
to delineate preliminary Land Systems. The initial breakdown is based
mainly on topography , depth of unconsolidated geological material s, and
landforms.
3) The preliminary maps are used to stratify the fi eld mapping transects
a nd the benchmark ecosystems to be de scribed in the field . Sampling is
preferred where the steepest gradients along toposequences, c1imosequences,
lithosequences, and chronosequences occur.
4) The field work comprises the following concurrent activities :
the determination of the ecologically effective climate over l;uge areas
(Land Regions) by comparing chronosequences on similar edaphophysiographic conditions;
the sampling of benchmark ecosystems whose classification determines
the ecologically effective segments of the land (La nd Types) under each
given climatic condition;
the checking of mapping boundaries.
5) Field observation data are compiled to arrive at a classification of the
Land Types.
6) The final Land Systems map is produced and the units are defined in
terms of the relative area percentages of the constituent Land Types .
7) The Land Systems are described and subdivided or grouped on the ba sis
of similarities of the water bodies. Important characteristics are : configuration, size, depth, shore materials, dissolved solids , turbidity.
8) The management interpretations of the Land Types and the Land
Systems are developed in cooperation with experts in the various resource
disciplines including foresters, agronomists, wildlife biologists, recreationalists, civil engineers, regional planners, and hydrologists .
Interpretations for Environmental Management
Ecologists, pedologists, and phytosociologists have produced many
classifications and maps of a high intrinsic scientific value, but often of
limited use to the land manager. Too often these documents were designed
for other ecologists, pedologists, and phytosociologists ; they may ha ve been
.
,
BIO·PHYSI CA L LAND CLASSIFICATION
491
cited in international publications, but land managers often could not assess
them in practical terms and transform them into action.
This situation has led to grouping of land ecologists and resource managers
into multidisciplinary teams with a much greater "interpretive power" . It is
only through the combined inputs of various specialists that interpretation s
and management recommendations, which are relevant to the field of
resource development planning and management, can be developed .
Several interpretations of the bio-physicalland units for area planning and
land management purposes have been achieved with varying degrees of
success, depending on the complexity of the area studied and the level of
ecological integration chosen . Interpretations from completed surveys follow :
••
I. Agriculture:
• land capacility for agriculture in 7 classes
• land suitability for various crops
• surface erosion potential
• agricultural management problems of the mapped units such as:
soils requiring irrigation or drainage
soils subject to flooding
soils of fine (heavy) texture and poor structure with heavy power
requirements for cultivation
soils subject to wind erosion and sand blasting
soils likely to be nitrogen deficient
soils likely to be sulfur deficient
soils likely to be affected by compaction, poor root penetration, surface
puddling, and crusting
soils low in organic matter
soils likely to have high land-clearing costs
soils with short frost-free periods
soils subject to overgrazing.
2. Forestry:
• land capability for forestry in 7 classes
• timber production potential in volume/unit area/year
• plantation difficulty
• land suitability for various species (plantations)
• establishment cost of plantations
• production cost of plantations
• windthrow hazard
• trafficability
• potential of natural regeneration
• plant competition following harvesting
492
JURDANT. LACATE. ZOLTAI. RUNKA. AND WELLS
•
•
•
•
aggressive species following harvesting
aggressive species following fire
soil damage by harvesting
type of damage expected during and subsequent to timber harvesting
operations: increased erosion, destruction of soil structure, stream sedimentation, increased slide hazard, etc.
• recommended slash disposal methods
• recommended management practices which best protect the soil and water
resources, i.e. no logging, winter logging, skidding across slopes to
minimize erosion, etc.
3. Recreation:
• land capability for recreation in 7 classes
• recreation potential of water bodies
• landscape attractiveness
• land suitability for various recreational uses such as:
intensive camping and picnic sites
building sites
paths and trails
intensive play areas
cottaging
artificial lakes
• ecological damage hazards subsequent to intensive recreational use
• recommended species for aesthetic reforestation.
4. Wildlife:
• land capability for ungulate wildlife in seven classes
• land capability for waterfowl wildlife in seven classes
• sedimentation yield potential in water bodies, following timber harvest,
road construction, and other activities
• land capability for various plant species important for wildlife such as:
mountain maple, lichens, herbaceous species, willows, etc.
• vegetation succession trend probability.
5. Water:
• water holding capacity of soil and land units
• sedimentation yield potential in water bodies following timber harvest,
road construction, and other activities.
6. Engineering:
• land suitability for engineering use
• topsoil suitability
• suitability as source of sand and gravel
• suitability as source of fill material
• soil features affecting road location
BIO-PHYSICAL LAND CLASSIFI CATION
493
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
soil features affecting foundations for low buildings
soil features limiting use for septic tank filter fields
soil features affecting use for sewage lagoons
soil features affecting use for pipelines
flooding hazards
ecological damage hazards subsequent to flooding
susceptibility of permafrost terrain to damage_
These interpretations can be expressed on an areal basis for the smallest
land unit level permitted by the nature of the study_ The inescapable
subjectivity of many of these evaluations is counterbalanced by the possibility
of re-evaluating the basic bio-physical mapping ecosystem units as new
information and research related to the management of the land becomes
available_
Applications
The bio-physical survey is an environmental survey which constitutes the
ecological framework of an area for the following activities.
I) Framework for assessment of environmental impacts of major developments
(e.g. James Bay Development Project, Quebec), roads and transportation
corridors (e.g. Mackenzie River Valley, North West Territories and Yukon),
flooding (e.g. South Indian Lake, Manitoba), urban development, large scale
logging operations, and farm abandonment.
...
2) Framework for land-use planning. Since the bio-physical map provides a
single permanent framework within which the natural renewable resources
are rated as to their potential production, it constitutes a suitable geographical basis for zoning. This information identifies the management options
available within the region in question. The zoning that could be delineated
would identify not only the areas of exclusive use, but also the areas of
compatible and complementary uses, as well as the ecologically sensitive
areas which require a high level of management integration.
3) Framework for environmental management. The bio-physical survey
provides an appreciation of the interaction of the environmental factors that
must be considered in single or multiple resource management. For example,
a program of reforestation of abandoned farmlands in a given sector should
consider the following interpretations provided by the bio-physical survey:
- the timber production potential
the planting difficulty
the trafficability
the species suitability
the landscape attractiveness
the land capability for agriculture
494
JURDANT, LACATE, ZOLTAI , RUNKA. AND W ELLS
the land capability for recreation
the erosion hazards
the windthrow hazards.
Operationally, the Bio-Physical Land Classification guidelines are being used,
in part, as a basis for recent ecological inventories in several national park s.
4) Framework for research and future surveys. The ecologically significant units
delineated on the bio-physical map provide the scientist with a framework
which allows him to extrapolate his research results and to orient his research
input towards those land areas which have the greatest significance. The
bio-physical survey also provides a framework for follow-up investigations,
either by other resource agencies or for surveys at a more detailed level as
need s or concerns are identified.
Conclusions
Within Canada, operational bio-physical surveys have been ca rried out or
are planned in several regions: British Columbia, Northwest Territories,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador. There are, at present, criteria and
procedures that have served us well in our endeavour to characterize and
evaluate land resources within the Canadian landscape. When properly
interpreted and applied, these classi fi ca tions have provided the land manager
with units which have distinct ecological significance for a variety of
management needs. Continued interdisciplinary inputs will be required to
incorporate these data into realistic environmental management plans.
Literature Cited
I. Burger, D. 1972. Forest site classification in Canada. Mitt. Ver. Forstl. Standortskunde
ForstpflZucht. No. 21. 39 p.
2. Canada Department of Agriculture. 1970. The System of Soil Classification lor Canada.
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa. 249 p.
3. Christian, C. S . 1952. Regional land surveys. J. Aust.lnst. Agric. Sci. 18: 140- 146.
4. Christian, C. S. , T. Nakano, D. Steiner, and H. T. Verstappen. 1968. Nature of integration
and the limitations of integrated surveys. In Aerial Surveys and Integrated Studies, r.
533-539. Proc. Toulouse Conf., (1964) , UNESCO, Paris.
5. Christian, C. S ., and G. A. Stewart. 1952. Genera l report on survey of Katherine-Darwin
region, 1946. Land Res. Serv., Commonw. Sci. Ind. Res. Organ. Aust. Rep . No. I.
156 p.
6. Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart. 1968. Methodology of integrated survey. In Aerial
Surveys and Integrated Studies, p. 233-280. Proc. Toulouse Conf. (1964), UNESCO ,
Paris.
7. Hills, G. A . 1960. Regional site research . For. Chron. 36: 401-423 .
8. Hills, G. A. 1961. The ecological basis for land-use planning. Ontario Dcp . Lands For.,
Res. Rep. No. 46. 204 p.
9. Hills , G. A. , D. V. Love, and D. S. Lacate. 1970. Developing a better environment.
Ecological land-use planning in Ontario-a study o f methodology in the development of
regional plans. Ontario Economic Council, Toronto. 175 p.
,.
BIO-PHYSICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION
.
-.
495
10. Jurdant, M. 1968. Ecological classification of forest lands , an integrated vegetation-soillandform approach. Ph.D. Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 414 p.
II. Jurdant, M., J . Beaubien , J. L. Belair, J. C. Dionne, and V. Gerardin. 1972. Carte
ecologique de la region du Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean-Notice explicative. Can. Fo r. Servo
Inf. Rep. Q-F-X-31. 3 vol.
12. Jurdant, M., R. Wells , R. Fulton, B. Dela ney , G. Kitchen , and O. Forsey. 1971. Ecological
survey of the Goose Bay Area, Labrador, Newfoundland. Progress Report . ProC. Nat.
Comm. on Forest Land Work Meeting, Kamloops, B. C. 94 p.
13 . Lacate, D. S., 1969. Guidelines for bio-physicalland classification. Can . For. Servo Publ.
No. 1204.61 p.
14. Rowe , J . S. 1961. The level-of-integra tion concept and ecology. Ecology 42 : 420-427.
15 . Rowe , J. S., 1962 . Soil, site and land classification. For. Chron. 38: 420-432.
16. Runka , G. G. 1972. Soil resources of the Smithers-Hazelton Area. British Columbia Dep.
Agric., Soil Surv. Div., Kelowna, B.C. 233 p.
17. Wells, R. E., J. P. Bou zane , and B. A. Roberts. 1972. Reconnaissance land classification of
the Corner Brook Area , Newfoundland. Can. For. Servo Inf. Rep . N-X-83 . 123 p.
18. Zoltai. S. C. 1970. Biophysica l land classification system and survey. Proc. 8th Meet. Can .
Soil Survey Comm., Ottawa. p. 139-145.
19. Zoltai, S. c., E. T . O swa ld, and C. Tarnocai. 1969 . Land classification for land evaluation:
Cormorant Lake Pilot Project. Can. For. Servo Inf. Rep. MS-X-20. 31 p.
THIS FILE COPY MUST BE RETURNED
TO:
INFORMATION SECTION,
NORTHERN FOREST RESEARCH CENTRE,
5320- 122 STREET,
EDMONTON, ALBERTA.
T6H 3S5
This is a reprint from
Forest Solis and Forest Land Management
Proceedings of the
Fourth North American Forest Soils Conference
held at Laval University, Quebec, in August 1973
Edited by B. BERNIER and C. H. WINGET
1975, Les Presses de I'Universite Laval
ISBN : 07746- 6716- 8
@
Book available in cloth binding @ $18.90 a copy
Les Presses de I'Universite Laval
C.P. 2447, Quebec G1K 7R4, Canada
Distribution
.,
IN THE UNITED STATES
International Scholarly Books Services, Inc .
P.O. Box 4347, Portland
. Oregon 97028
IN EUROPE
Librairie Vuibert
63, boulevard Saint-Germain
75005 Paris, France