IS THE GREATER ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTRELEVANT FOR CONSERVING THE INTEGRITY

OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE CANADIANROCKY MOUNTAINS?

David W. Mayhood

Freshwater Research Limited, 1715 Seventh Avenue NW, Calgary AB

Canada T2N OZ5 E-mail: fwr@nucleus.com

SUMMARY

Greater ecosystems as typically envisioned consist of a core protected area

surrounded by a defined region of controlled development or some form of

cooperati ve management. A case study of one such greater ecosystem in the

Canadian Rockies, the Central Rockies Ecosystem, shows this concept to be

inappropriate for managing for integrity and biodiversity of aquatic ecosys-

tems. The existing greater ecosystem does not incorporate waters that are inte- I

gral to this ecosystem, while it does group a variety of disparate, unconnected I

aquatic systems. An alternative concept of open-ended major river basins as

greater ecosystems is proposed and shown to be both more realistic and more

useful as a basis for managing aquatic ecosystems. Groupings of open-ended

major basins also group influential landscape features such as riparian corri-

dors in ways that are ecologically meaningful for many terrestrial organisms,

reducing artificial boundaries between protected areas, surrounding control-

led development zones, and the "Real World." As a result, open-ended major

river basins may prove to be a more realistic and useful concept of the greater

ecosystem for managing many components of the landscape.

1. INTRODUCTION .

One of the more intractable problems in managing parks and other protected

'. a~eas is that the ecosystems are inevitably subject to degradation by human

. irtfluences outside their boundaries. One way of dealing with this problem is to

make parks large (1,2,3). A related approach has been to surround the park

with one or more "buffer zones", which may incorporate existing public lands,

and in which there are various restrictions on development. This latter ap-

proach might be termed the classical Greater Ecosystem Concept of park man-

agement, as exemplified by the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (4). A third

strategy is to attempt to protect protected-area interests on surrounding lands

through some sort of cooperative mechanism among adjacent jurisdictions, as

is contemplated in the Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem (5). This is an-

other conception of the Greater Ecosystem idea.

Some limitations of greater ecosystems as conservation tools are rather

obvious. They would appear to be of greatest use for managing certain

populations, such as those of large mammals, that may range over regional·:

772 SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTEO AREAS

scales. They are of less use in protecting populations of species such as migra-

tory birds that rang~ over entire continents, or even across entire hemispheres.

All greater ecosystem management schemes suffer from the general problem

of jurisdictional subdivision and the accompanying conflicts in mandates.

Nevertheless, some formulation of the greater ecosystem approach would ap-

pear to be necessary for dealing with many regional-scale conservation prob-

lems.

The question examined in this paper is whether the greater ecosystem

concept as presently envisioned is relevant for conserving the integrity and

biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems in Canada's Rocky Mountains. It is first

shown that a representative greater ecosystem in the region, the Central Cana-

dian Rockies Ecosystem (CCRE), does not satisfactorily incorporate the criti-

cal structures and functions of aquatic ecosystems in that region. A concept of

the greater ecosystem that is more suitable for maintaining the integrity and

biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems in the Canadian Rocky Mountains is then \

proposed, as are certain propoerties that make it a potentially useful concept

for many terrestrial ecosystems.

II

I

•2. THE EXAMPLE OF THE CENTRAL CANADIAN ROCKIES

ECOSYSTEM

The Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem surrounds and includes Banff, Yoho

and Kootenay national parks. Its area of 43,427.5 krn2 straddles the Continen-

tal Divide, with two-thirds in Alberta and the remainder in British Columbia

(Figure 1) (5). The western slopes of the ecosystem are drained by the Colum-

bia River and its tributary the Kootenay River; the eastern slopes lie in the

drainages of the North and South branches of the Saskatchewan River basin.l

It is sufficient for illustrative purposes to consider only one element of

the aquatic resources of this greater ecosystem, the fishes. I surveyed existing

information in historical documents; technical publications and reports;

selected file data held by Parks Canada, Alberta Fish and Wildlife and the

British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks; and interviewed

reliable observers knowledgeable about selected waters to determine the na-

tive and present distribution of fishes within the CCRE. This analysis has been

reported in greater detail elsewhere (5,6).

Fifty-four species of fish have been recorded in or near the CCRE. Of

these 33 are, or once were, native to some part of the ecosystem or connected

adjacent waters. Thirteen species were native exclusively to the waters of the

west slopes, and 13 are native to waters only on the east slopes. Just seven

species were native to waters on both sides of the Continental Divide, but

three of these were represented by different subspecies or morphotypes on

I The terms "basin", "drainage basin" and "catchment" are used synonymously in thiS paper."Watershed" is used only in its strictly correct sense to mean the drainage divide, as

opposed to its alternate usage as a synonym for catchment or drainage basin. "Drainage"

used alone means the branchwork of watercourses in a basin.

SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS 773

·Figure J. The Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem. showing existing nominally protected

areas (hatched). BNP, Banff National Park; JNP, Jasper National Park; Kootenay National

Park; YNP, Yoho National Park; ELPP, Elk Lakes Provincial Park; MAPP. Mount

Assiniboine Provincial Park; PLPP, Peter Lougheed Provincial Park; GRW. Ghost River

Wilderness; SW, SifJIeur Wilderness; WGW, White Goat Wilderness.

each side. Thus only II percent of the fish fauna native to the CCRE was

common to waters on both sides of the divide.On these grounds alone, it is clear that the CCRE as presently conceived

does not comprise an appropriate unit ecosystem for fish conservation and

management. With such distinct fish faunas,'the CCRE is at least two greater

systems with respect to aquatic resources.But there are other problems. While some fish populations complete their

life history entirely within the boundaries of the CCRE, many do not. For

example, the introduced kokanee that spawn by the thousands in the Kootenay

774 SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS

River as far upstream as Mount Wardle in Kootenay National Park complete

the rest of their life history far outside the CCRE in the Kookanusa Reservoir

of Montana and extreme southern British Columbia. Anadromous fishes na-

tive to the Columbia mainstem in the CCRE (before impassable dams blocked

them) spent much of their lives as far from the greater ecosystem as the North

Pacific Ocean. On the east slopes, bull trout formerly used the major river

mainstems far out onto the plains, far beyond the boundaries of the CCRE.

Similarly, the native west slope cutthroat trout ranged well beyond the CCRE

in the Bow system to below Calgary. The present CCRE boundaries thus are

not meaningful for these species.

3. GREATER AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE ROCKIES: ANALTERNATIVE CONCEPT

At the very least a useful natural ecosystem for aquatic conservation and man-

agement should include all waters within which frequent, natural genetic in-

terchange among aquatic populations is possible. It should also be functionally

integrated such that the physical, chemical and biological elements and proc-

esses with which aquatic organisms interact are included within the ecosystem

boundaries, while those with which there is little or no interaction are ex-

cluded. The fishes of the North Saskatchewan drainage, for example, do not

interact with those in the Kootenay drainage. The physical, chemical and bio-

logical elements and processes of the Red Deer basin are not an integral part of

the ecosystem of the Columbia drainage. What is of direct and intimate rel-

evance to the Red Deer drainage fish stocks are the physical, chemical and

biological elements and processes of the Red Deer basin. The North Saskatch-

ewan basin fishes interact among themselves, and not with those on the~a~side of the Continental Divide. .

Ideally, an ecosystem would incorporate the entire range and all critical

habitats of each population within its boundaries. Critical habitats are all those

key habitats required by aquatic organisms to complete their life cycle. For

fishes, these include places for spawning, egg incubation, rearing, feeding,

refuge (from predators and extreme events such as floods), and overwintering.

All these critical habitats are only rarely in a single location, therefore safe and

passable migratory routes between them likewise are critical.

What functionally connects aquatic organisms with their habitats, and

both of them with terrestrial organisms and their habitats on a regional scale is

the drainage basin (7,8,9,10). The regional drainage basin therefore is a poten-

tially useful concept of the greater ecosystem for aquatic resource conserva-tion and management.

That the drainage basin has a fundamental relationship to the ecology of

aquatic habitats has long been recognized. As D. S. Rawson put it, summariz-

ing much previous limnological work:

It is self-evident that the nature of the drainage area must in a large

measure determine the kinds and amounts of primary nutritive materi-

als in a lake. The composition, age and weathering of the rock, the soil

SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTEaED AREAS 775

and vegetation cover, the extent ofthe drainage area and the amount

of run-off are all important considerations. (11)

In fact for any given climate, the edaphic influence of the drainage basin

is the primary factor detennining productivity of lakes, while morphometry

plays a secondary, though still powerful, role (II, 12).

Despite its long-known and obvious importance to the ecology of aquatic

habitats within it, the drainage basin has been promoted only much more re-

cently as an especially useful concept of the ecosystem. In this view, streams

are seen not as purely aquatic phenomena (as individual lakes reasonably can

be, up to a point), but as integral parts of the valleys that they drain (13). As H.

B. N. Hynes put it in his landmark summary of the concept,

We.may conclude then that in every respect the valley rules the stream.

Its rock determines the availability of ions, its soil, its clay, even its

slope. The soil and climate determine the vegetation, and the vegeta-

tion rules the supply of organic matter. The organic matter reacts with

the soil to control the release of ions, and the ions, particularly nitrate

and phosphate, control the decay of the litter, and hence lie right at the

root of the food cycle. (13)

As a result of this tight ecological connection of the stream to its valley,

we should not be surprised that disturbances in a drainage basin, whether caused

by nature or humans, can have profound effects on the ecology of its aquatic

habitats ( 13).Of particular importance in the ecology of the drainage basin is the ripar-

ian zone (7, I0, 14,15), that three-dimensional corridor of variable dimensions

within which land- and water-based ecosystems interact (7).1 This zone is in-

fluential to the ecology of a catchment far out of proportion to the actual area

it occupies. Water, air, dissolved and particulate matter, plants and animals

. move into and along the riparian corridor. The riparian ecosystem links the • ~I

hillslopes and uplands to the valley floor, altering the microclimate, mediating I ,

the passage of light, water and nutrients, contributing organic matter to the

channels, trapping sediments and debris during floods.

It is in the riparian zone of a catchment that geomorphic processes typi-

cally are most active. Here seasonal flow changes, occasional catastrophic

flows. and a variety of mass soil movements act on the channel, banks and

floodplain to form a changing mosaic of physical habitats. These diverse physi-

cal habitats become a template for diverse plant communities, reflecting the

great variety of habitats available. The riparian plant communities are highly

dynamic, changing successionally and in response to new disturbances, be

they initiated by stream flows in the valley bottom, or by fire and pest infesta-

tions from within the community or from the hillslopes and uplands. The ready

The account in this and the following two pagraphs relies heavily on the riparian

ecosystem model proposed by Gregory et al. (7).

776 SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTEaED AREAS

availability of water, the diversity of the physical habitats, and the diversity

and productivity of the plant communities, commonly support the most abun-

dant, productive and diverse association of animals in the drainage basin.

But most importantly, riparian zones are the great connectors of land-

scapes. They connect aquatic with terrestrial habitats. They connect headwa-

ters and highlands to mainstem rivers and lowlands through a tightly-integrated

branchwork of valleys and watercourses. Materials move downslope to the

watercourses, thence down valley , and then often outward again to floodplains

and lateral channels. Many plants and animals disperse preferentially along

riparian corridors, moving both up- and down-valley.

Bacause they integrate aquatic and terrestrial systems so well, drainage

basins have great functional value as ecosystem units for regional land and

resource management (9,10,16,17,18).

I

II

4. THE CENTRAL CANADIAN ROCKIES ECOSYSTEM

REDEFINED

One possible form of the CCRE redefined in terms of major regional drainage

basin ecosystems is illustrated in Figure 2.

The redefined concept has a number of interesting properties.

1. The region previously known as the CCRE is actually several greater

ecosystems, each one a major regional drainage basin.

2. Most of the new greater ecosystems are open-ended: they lack down-

stream boundaries. Sharp, ecologically-meaningful boundaries rarely

exist at the outlets of drainage basins. For practical purposes, the wa-

tersheds can be expanded or contracted to meet the needs of the mo-

ment.

.3. The open-ended nature of these ecosystem units forces us to view

conservation problems in the region in a much more meaningful con-

text. Instead of thinking of the CCRE as a tidy unitary patch ofland-

scape that we might eventually be able to control, we see it as a vast

open area from which everything we do within the region unavoidablyleaks out.

4. The national parks and other adjacent protected areas are shown in

their true context, not as the centre of the regional ecosystem, but as,

adjuncts to much larger regional ecosystems. Parks have a limited,

albeit a crucial, role to play in these regional ecosystems, but most

ecosystem protection must take place primarily outside parks, in theso-called "working landscapes."

s. FINAL THOUGHTSThe idea of using major regional drainage basins as greater ecosystems is not

necessarily the best approach for all ecosystem management problems. I do

believe it to be the best concept for dealing with aquatic ecosystem conserva-

tion on a regional scale. I encourage terrestrial ecologists to seriously consider

the strengths of the drainage basin ecosystem model for application to their.1.

SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTEaED AREAS 777

~

Figllre 2. SlIggested bOllndaries/or the Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem/or fish

conservation and management, showing existing nominally-protected areas (hatched).

Lilies mark the bOllndaries o/major regional drainage basin ecosystems. A, Columbia

Mainstem; B, Upper Kicking Horse; C, Upper Kootenay; D, North Saskatchewan

Maillstem; E, Upper Ram; F, Clearwater; G, Red Deer; H, Bow.

own work: its natural boundaries, its strong functionally-integrated nature, and

especially its productive, connective riparian corridors for many of the species

and communities with which they must deal.

Managers of the various protected arcas in thc CCRE are encouraged to

see their lands as lands that protect parts of larger regional drainage basin

ecosystems. Their job is also to protect usually small, but often crucial, parts

of regional catchments so as to protect the ecological integrity and biodiversity

of the basin outside their parks.

Central to my concerns about the conventional greater ecosystem con-

cept already noted is this: greater ecosystems typically are designed to protect

778 SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS

parks. In particular, they are designed to deal with a small handful of large

mammal populations centred in parks. I suggest that this view misses the point.

Protected area scientists and managers need to remind themselves of what

parks are for. By far the highest use of parks is to protect, not just their own

ecosystem integrity, but the ecological integrity of the regional ecosystem they

represent. They can do this in at least three ways:

1. as models of natural ecosystem structure and function

2. as refuges for regional organisms

3. as sources of regionally-adapted organisms for restoration.

Ifwe begin to view greater ecosystems in this way--as regions in which

we must make our living, served by parks designed to help us conserve the

critical life-support systems of our landscapes--we will begin to focus our

attention where it belongs, on the "working landscapes" that we are destroying

because of the way we work in them.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Portions of this work were supported by Jasper and Banff national parks under

contracts KJP-O1290 and KBP-2059, respectively. The comments of an anony-

mous reviewer were a valuable aid in improving this paper over an earlier

draft.

7. REFERENCES

1. B.A. Wilcox. 1980. Insular Ecology and Conservation, pages 95-117, in

M. E. Soule and B. A. Wilcox, editors, Conservation Biology: An Evolu- .

tionary-Ecological Perspective, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland,

Massachusetts.

2. O.H. Frankel and M.E. Soule. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

3. G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll. The Design of Conservation Reserves. pages

265-304, in G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll (eds.) 1994. Principles o/Con-

servation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.

4. R.B. Keiter and M.S. Boyce (eds.) 1991. The Greater Yellowstone Eco-

system: Redefining America's Wilderness Heritage. Yale University Press,

NewHaven,CN.

5. C. White, D. Gilbride, M. Scott-Brown and C. Stewart. 1995. Atlas of

the Central Canadian Rockies Ecosystem. prepared for Central Rockies

Ecosystem Interagency Liaison Group.

6. D.W. Mayhood, 1995. The Fishes of the Central Canadian Rockies Eco-

system, Freshwater Research Limited Report No. 950408, prepared for

Parks Canada, Banff National Park, P.O. Box 900, Banff, AB. TOLOCO.

7. S.V. Gregory, F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An

Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones. BioScience 41 :540-551.

8. I.J. Schlosser. 1991. Stream Fish Ecology: A Landscape Perspective,

BioScience. 41:704-712.

SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTEaED AREAS 779

9. G.H. Reeves and J.R. Sedel1. An Ecosystem Approach to the Conserva-

tion and Management of Freshwater Habitat for Anadromous Salmonids

in the Pacific Northwest. pages 408-415. in J.E. Williams and R.J. Neves.

(eds.) 1992. Biological Diversity in Aquatic Management. Reprint of

Special Section 6. Transactions of the 57th North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, Wash-

ington, DC.

10. J.A. Stanford and J.V. Ward. Management of Aquatic Resources in Large

Catchments: Recognizing Interactions Between Ecosystem Connectivity

and Environmental Disturbance. pp. 91-124, in R. J.Naiman (ed.) 1992.

Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental

Change. Springer-Verlag, Inc., New York NY. 1992.

11. D.S. Rawson. 1939. Some Physical and Chemical Factors in the Me-

tabolism of Lakes. American Association/or the Advancement o/Sci-

ence. 10:9-26.

12. D.S. Rawson. 1941. Soils as a Primary Influence in the Biological Pro-

ductivity of Lakes. Transactions o/the Canadian Conservation Associa-

tion. 1:78-87.

13. H.B.N. Hynes. 1975. The Stream and its Valley. Internationale

Vereinigung /iir Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie

Verhandlungen.19:1-15.

14. J.V. Ward. 1989. The Four-dimensional Nature oflotic Ecosystems. Jour-

nal o/the North American Benthological Society. 8:2-8.

15. J.V. Ward and J.A. Stanford. Riverine Ecosystems: The Influence of Man

on Catchment Dynamics and Fish Ecology. pp. 56-64 in D.P. Dodge

(ed.) 1989. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium,

Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106.

16. F. B. Lotspeich. 1980. Watersheds as the Basic Ecosystem: This Concep-

tual Framework Provides a Basis for a Natural Classification System.

Water Resources Bulletin. 16:581-586.

17. T.C. Dewberry. Protecting the Biodiversity of Riverine and Riparian Eco-

systems: The National River Public Land Policy Development Project,

pages 424-32. in J.E. Wil1iams and R.J. Neves (eds.) Biological Diver-

sity in Aquatic Management. Reprint of Special Section 6, Transactions

ofthe 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,

Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.

18. Pacific Rivers Council. 1993. The New Watershed Imperative: A New

Approach to Restore America's River Ecosystems and Biodiversity.

780 SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTEaED AREAS

Mayhood, D. W. 1998. Is the greater ecosystem

concept relevant for conserving the integrity of

aquatic ecosystems in the Canadian Rocky

Mountains? pp. 772-780. in Munro, N. W. P, and J. H.M. Willison, editors. Linking protected areas with working

landscapes conserving biodiversity. Science and

Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville,

NS. xvii+ 1018 p.

.1

I

Ii'

LINKING PROTECTED AREAS

WITH

WORKING LANDSCAPES

CONSERVING BIODNERSI'1Y

Proceedings of the Third International

Conference on Science and Management

of Protected Areas / 12-16 May 1997

Editors

Neil W.P. MunroParks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage,

Historic Proerties, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J IS9, Canada

&

lH. Martin WillisonSchool of Resource and Environmental Studies,

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4Jl, Canada

A Science and Management of Protected Areas

~Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada

1998

<0 1998 Science and Management of Protected Areas Association

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication

Main entry under title:

Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving

biodiversity: proceedings of the Third International conference on

Science and Management of Protected Areas, held at the

University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 12-16 May 1997

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 09699338-4-3

1. Natural areas - Management - Congresses.

2. Natural resources - Management - Congresses.

3. Conservation of natural resources - Congresses.

4. Land use - Planning - congresses.

I. Munro, Neil W.P.

II. Willison, lH. Martin

III. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association

QH75.AIL551998 338.78'17 C87-980254-X

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed and bound in Canada

Coordinator of publication: Elizabeth Eve, Halifax NS.

Published by the Science and Management of Protected Areas

Association

[mailing address)

Centre for Wildlife and Conservation Biology

A(jadi~ University

W~lfVille, Nova Scotia BOP lXO

Canada

Citation of this publication:

Munro, Neil W.P. and J.H. Martin Willison (eds.) 1998. Linking

Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving

Biodiversity. Proceedings of the Third International Conference

on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 12-16 May

1997. Wolfville, Canada: SAMPAA.

Iv SCIENCE & MANAGEMENT OF PROTEaED AREAS

SAMPAA PublicationsThe Science & Management of Protected Areas Association conference proceedings are peer-reviewed andedited following each conference. We also co-publish with other organizations.

1991-2000 conference proceedings were bound as hardcovers and may be ordered.2003-2007 conference proceedings were published electronically. They may be downloaded free ofcharge.

Copyright Notice

Each article is copyrighted © and published here by The Science and Management of Protected AreasAssociation, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada, under license from the author(s).

Open Access

SAMPAA provides open access to the conference proceedings (since 2003) on the principle that making researchfreely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.