Recovery Strategy for the Common Hoptree in Canada [Proposed] 2011: References

Previous ToC Next

Ambrose, J.D. 2002. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Common Hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata) in Canada, in COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Common Hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 14 pp.

Ambrose, J.D., pers. comm. 2010. Telephone conversation with V. McKay. Private Consultant, Guelph, Ontario.

Ambrose, J. and S. Aboud. 1984. Status report on the Hop Tree (Ptelea trifoliata). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 26 pp.

Ambrose, J.D., P.G. Kevan, and R.M. Gadawski. 1985. Hop tree (Ptelea trifoliata) in Canada: population and reproductive biology of a rare species. Canadian Journal of Botany 63: 1928-1935.

Baird, W.F. & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. 2010a. Colchester to Southeast Shoal Beach Nourishment Study. Prepared for Essex Region Conservation Authority, Essex, Ontario. Project No. 11395.101. 78 pp. + Appendices A–D.

Baird, W.F. & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. 2010b. Point Pelee Peninsula Eastern Shoreline Erosion Mitigation Study. Prepared for Essex Region Conservation Authority, Essex, Ontario. Project No. 11329.101. 65 pp. + Appendices A–F.

Brant, A., pers. comm. 2009. Telephone conversation with V. McKay. December 2009. Species at Risk Technician, OMNR, Guelph District, Vineland Area, Vineland, Ontario.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Common Hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. vi + 14 pp.

Dobbie, T. 2008. Point Pelee National Park of Canada Middle Island Conservation Plan. Parks Canada Agency, Leamington, Ontario. 44 pp.

Dobbyn, S. 2005. An Inventory of the Common Hoptree (Ptelea trifoliata) in Rondeau Provincial Park. Ontario Parks, Morpeth, Ontario. 7 pp.

Dobbyn, S. and L. Pasma. 2009. Life Science Inventory and Evaluation of Rondeau Provincial Park. Draft. Ontario Parks, Morpeth, Ontario.

Dougan & Associates. 2006. Species Descriptions for Species Occurring in Lake Erie Sand Spit Savannas in Canada. Prepared for Point Pelee National Park, Parks Canada Agency, Leamington, Ontario. 132 pp.

Dougan & Associates. 2007. Point Pelee National Park Ecological Land Classification and Plant Species at Risk Mapping and Status. Prepared for Point Pelee National Park, Parks Canada Agency, Leamington, Ontario. 109 pp. + Appendices A–I.

Dougan & Associates and V.L. McKay. 2009. An Ecosystem-based Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus (Opuntia humifusa) – Lake Erie Sand Spit Savannas in Canada (Draft). Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa, Ontario. xiv + 147 pp.

Farrar, J.L. 1995. Trees in Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited, Markham, Ontario. 502 pp.

Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk Act Policies: Overarching Policy Framework. DRAFT. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Electronic monograph in PDF format. 38 pp.

Harris, A., pers. comm. 2011. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. February 2011. Northern Bioscience, Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Hebert, C.E., J.A. Duffe, D.V. Weseloh, E.M.T. Senese, and G.D. Haffner. 2005. Unique island habitats may be threatened by double-crested cormorants. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 68-76.

Hobara, S., T. Osono, K. Koba, N. Tokuchi, S. Fujiwara, and K. Kameda. 2001. Forest floor quality and N transformations in a temperate forest affected by avian-derived N deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 130: 679-684.

Hutchinson, B.C., W.B. Ranta, and T. Mosquin. 1988. White-tailed Deer Management Plan for Point Pelee National Park. Environment Canada, Parks Service, Natural Resource Conservation, Leamington, Ontario. 72 pp. + appendices.

Jacobs, C., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. April 2010. Natural Heritage Co-ordinator, Walpole Island First Nation Heritage Centre, Walpole Island First Nation, Ontario.

Jacobs, C., pers. comm. 2011. E-mail correspondence to K. Borg. April 2011. Natural Heritage Co-ordinator, Walpole Island First Nation Heritage Centre, Walpole Island First Nation, Ontario.

Jalava, J.V. 2008. COSEWIC-designated Plant Species at Risk Inventories, Point Pelee National Park, including Sturgeon Creek Administrative Centre and Middle Island, 2007. Volume 2: Managed Area Element Status Assessments. Prepared for Point Pelee National Park, Parks Canada Agency, Leamington, Ontario. ii + 103 pp.

Jalava, J.V., P.L. Wilson, and R.A. Jones. 2008. COSEWIC-designated Plant Species at Risk Inventories, Point Pelee National Park, including Sturgeon Creek Administrative Centre and Middle Island, 2007. Volume 1: Summary Report. Prepared for Point Pelee National Park, Parks Canada Agency, Leamington, Ontario. vii + 126 pp.

Johnson, G.R. 1997. Tree preservation during construction: a guide to estimating costs. Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.

Kamstra, J., M.J. Oldham, and P.A. Woodliffe. 1995. A Life Science Inventory and Evaluation of Six Natural Areas in the Erie Islands, Essex County, Ontario: Fish Point Provincial Nature Reserve, Lighthouse Point Provincial Nature Reserve, Stone Road Complex, Middle Point, East Sister Island Provincial Nature Reserve, and Middle Island. Aylmer District (Chatham Area), OMNR, Chatham, Ontario. 140 pp. + 8 Appendices + folded maps.

Lebedyk, D. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. December 2010. Conservation Biologist, Essex Region Conservation Authority, Essex, Ontario.

Lee, H.T. 2004. Provincial ELC Catalogue Version 8. OMNR, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, London, Ontario. Microsoft Excel File.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. OMNR, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, London, Ontario. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.

Little, E.L., Jr. 1976. Atlas of United States trees, volume 3, minor Western hardwoods: U. S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 1314. 13 pp. + 290 maps.

Macbeth, J., pers. comm. 2011. E-mail correspondence to K. Borg. April 2011. Project Review Coordinator, Walpole Island First Nation Heritage Centre, Walpole Island First Nation, Ontario.

McFarlane, M., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. March 2010. Conservation Biologist, Southwestern Ontario, Nature Conservancy of Canada, London, Ontario.

McLeod, K.W. and P.G. Murphy. 1983. Factors affecting growth of Ptelea trifoliata seedlings. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 2410-2415.

Nature Conservancy of Canada. 2008. Management Guidelines: Pelee Island Alvars. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Southwestern Ontario Region, London, Ontario. 43 pp. Web site: http://www.carolinian.org/Documents/student_assistantship_program/Reports/Pelee%20Alvar%20Mgmt%20Guide%20CURRENT.pdf.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Web site: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ [Accessed: February 8, 2011].

Oldham, M.J., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. December 2010. Botanist/Herpetologist, NHIC, Peterborough, Ontario.

OMNR. 1991. Rondeau Provincial Park Management Plan. Queens Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. ii +27 pp. + amendments.

OMNR. Guelph_Common_Hoptree.xls and COHO 2009 Niagara ab.xls. Excel Files. Unpublished Data covering years 2005 - 2009.

OMNR. 2009a. Common Hoptree Species at Risk. Identification card. OMNR, Vineland, Ontario.

OMNR. 2009b. Common Hoptree Species at Risk. Poster. OMNR, Vineland, Ontario.

OMNR. 2009c. Threatened Species. Common Hoptree Ptelea trifoliata. Help Protect Sand Dunes. Sticker. OMNR, Vineland, Ontario.

OMNR. 2009d. Threatened Species. Common Hoptree Ptelea trifoliata. Help Protect Sand Dunes. Magnet. OMNR, Vineland, Ontario.

OMNR. 2010. Species at Risk in Ontario List. OMNR, Peterborough, Ontario. Web site: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html. [Accessed: February 8, 2011].

Rennie, F. 1982. An Assessment of the National Significance of Middle Island, Ontario.

Parks System Planning, National Parks Branch, Parks Canada Agency, Ottawa, Ontario. 96 pp.

Ritchie, R., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. December 2010. Retired Park Naturalist, Niagara Parks Commission, Niagara Falls, Ontario.

Rousseau, C. 1974. Géographie floristique du Québec-Labrador. Travaux et documents du centre d'Études Nordiques. Les Presses de l'Université Laval, Laval, Québec. 799 pp.

Scarr, T., A. Hopkin, and J. Pollard (eds). 2007. Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2006. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. 81 pp.

Stone, E.L. and P.J. Kalisz. 1990. On the maximum extent of tree roots. Forest Ecology and Management 46: 59-102.

Sutherland, D.A., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. December 2010. Zoologist, NHIC, Peterborough, Ontario.

Waldron, G. 2003. Trees of the Carolinian Forest. The Boston Mills Press, Erin, Ontario. 275 pp.

Woodliffe, P.A., pers. comm. 2009. Telephone conversation with V. McKay. December 2009. District Ecologist, Aylmer District, OMNR, Chatham, Ontario.

Woodliffe, P.A., pers. comm. 2010. E-mail correspondence to V. McKay. November 2010. District Ecologist, Aylmer District, OMNR, Chatham, Ontario.

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan, and Program Proposals. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process, based on national guidelines, directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non- target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

Most broad strategies and approaches to recover Common Hoptree are expected to have either no significant adverse impacts or to have a positive effect on the environments in which it is found, as well as on the other species occupying those areas.

Common Hoptrees are almost entirely restricted in their range to Lake Erie coastal habitats that are, in at least some locations, home to other nationally and/or provincially designated species at risk (e.g. Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus [Opuntia humifusa], Dwarf Hackberry [C. tenuifolia], Fowler's Toad [Anaxyrus fowleri], Five-lined Skink [Plestiodon fasciatus], Eastern Foxsnake [Pantherophis gloydi], and Eastern Hog-nosed Snake [Heterodon platyrhinos], to name a few). The Common Hoptree plays an important role in shoreline stabilization, so its recovery is expected to help prevent physical loss of shoreline areas and habitats needed by many other species. As such, Common Hoptree recovery is expected to benefit species associates. Protection of Common Hoptree and its habitat will help to maintain robust and intact coastal dune ecosystems, and limestone alvars and their plant communities, habitats which are, in themselves, provincially, and in some cases even globally, rare (Dougan & Associates and McKay 2009). This tree is also the preferred host plant, and one of only two species, on which the provincially rare Giant Swallowtail (Papilio cresphontes) butterfly larvae feed (Ambrose 2002). A twig-boring beetle and two moths have also been found to feed on Common Hoptree (see Section 4.2.5).

Common Hoptree surveys and research may result in the location of other species at risk and/or identify the threats acting on them and the associated level of concern. Critical habitat protection and the implementation of best management practices, restoration of coastal processes, removal of invasive, exotic species from suitable habitat, and other work to reduce the impacts of unchecked habitat succession would similarly be expected to benefit the suite of open habitat species typically found in association with Common Hoptree, particularly in dynamic shoreline areas. Increased public awareness of the species, including information on where it occurs, threats to it and actions that individuals can take to aid its recovery are likely to result in benefits to the suite of species found in sensitive shoreline areas through reduced recreational and residential impacts. Similarly, management of hyperabundant species will benefit many species that are impacted by deer browse or by the guano and altered habitat conditions brought about by mass nesting of Double-crested Cormorants on Middle Island. Implementation of erosion mitigation measures on both sides of the Point Pelee peninsula, over the long-term, should slow the physical loss of habitat that Common Hoptree and many other species depend upon.

Negative environmental effects arising from this strategy will likely be confined to species having detrimental effects on Common Hoptree (e.g. hyperabundant White-tailed Deer and Double- crested Cormorants) or its habitat (i.e. through vegetation succession to closed canopy habitats).

Different plant species have varying levels of shade tolerance. Favourable open canopy conditions for the Common Hoptree may not be optimal for co-occurring species. Common Hoptree management may include the control of other plants to maintain an optimal early to mid successional stage. Effects could include potential loss of individuals of other species, including other species at risk, or a decrease in their fitness; potential loss of mature forest, woodland, and/or thicket habitats; loss of downed, woody debris that can provide important microhabitat for other species; displacement of existing vegetation; and the potential disturbance of soil contaminants that may affect other species. The potential loss of individual plants from trampling and disturbance due to research and/or monitoring activities could also occur. An ecosystem- based approach to implementation of the broad strategies to achieve Common Hoptree recovery, which considers the needs of the multitude of significant and common species and habitats found in proximity to Common Hoptree, is therefore recommended as crucial to their persistence, maintenance, and recovery. Implementation of habitat management approaches in particular needs to be done in such a way as to ensure that a mosaic of open and closed habitats are maintained to ensure viability of all species in that environment. Restricting vegetation management activities to portions of the habitat and managing the timing of activities should reduce disturbance to all species by providing “refuge” areas.

Where necessary, potential negative impacts of habitat modification, invasive species removals, shoreline alterations, and/or species management projects at Point Pelee National Park or as part of other federally funded projects will be addressed and corresponding mitigation measures will be developed in a project level environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The same is done at provincial park sites under A Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. Environmental assessments may require follow-up to determine the success of the techniques implemented, and the accuracy of the effects predicted. This will allow for adaptive management, the mitigation of potential environmental effects, and continual adjustment and improvement of recovery efforts. Hyperabundant species management of Double-crested Cormorants (Middle Island, Point Pelee National Park) and White-tailed Deer (mainland Point Pelee National Park and Rondeau Provincial Park) have been reviewed via environmental assessments and other processes and been deemed to be in the best interests of maintaining overall ecological integrity in the areas that they currently occur. Mitigation measures to address potential negative environmental effects are included in these reports and are applied during management activities. New iterations of these plans will continue to be reviewed using these environmental assessment processes. Consultation with archaeologists and increased visitor and public awareness of damaging activities are expected to alleviate the potential to damage archaeological resources, and negative impacts on the experiences of visitors to public areas respectively.

Previous ToC Next

Page details

Date modified: