Comparison of Riparian Vegetation among

Impacted and Minimally-Impacted Sites on

Lower St. Regis Lake and Reference

Conditions on Black Pond

Zachary Bird, Alexander Cummings, Robert Nuber and Alexander Roache

Ecological Restoration

“..the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem

that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed…”

www.ser.org

PSC Mission

“Paul Smith’s College actively educates students to become productive citizens by combining experiential and traditional instruction through our

commitment to discovery, discipline and creativity. Our Paul Smith's College community, residing within the Adirondack Park, promotes economic, social

and environmental sustainability…”

Our Goals

• Use this project as part of the problem identification stage.

• Identify differences between impacted, minimally impacted and reference sites.

• Use collected data to implement future restoration efforts.

Objectives (Trees)

• Compare the mean DBH among Levels of Impact.

• Compare Canopy Cover among Levels of Impact.

• Compare Density of Living and Dead trees among Levels of Impact

• Compare Seedling/Sapling Densities among Levels of Impact

• Determine Wetland Indicator Status for Trees among Level of Impact.

Objectives (Species Richness)

• Compare Species Richness for all vegetation among Level of Impact.

• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact.

• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Level of

Impact.

Study Sites (Reference Sites)

Reference Sites on Black Pond

Study Sites (Impacted and Minimally

Impacted Sites)

Criteria for Impacted Conditions

• Define impacted conditions

• Obvious signs of human alteration.

Criteria for Minimally Impacted Conditions

• Define Minimally Impacted conditions for comparison.

• Conditions display little human alteration.

Criteria Reference Conditions• Define the reference conditions

for comparison.

• Conditions display minimal or no human alteration.

• Reference conditions serve as model for planning a restoration project.

Layout of Study Sites

• Three Levels of Impacts

– Four Sites per level

– Six Plots per site

• Total of 72 plots

Sampling Design Layout

Land

Water

60 m

Data Collection Process

Data Analysis

• Our species richness analyses were divided into three

comparisons.

– Total Vegetation

– Vegetation Class

– Wetland Indicator Status

• We used the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis comparison

Major Findings from Objectives

• Tree (species composition and densities): According to the total tree counts, we

were able to determine that there were significant differences among levels of

impact.

• Canopy cover and the effect on species richness: We found that canopy cover

had a significant effect on total species richness among levels of impact.

• Lawn effect on Species Richness: After several analyses we noticed that the

abundance of lawn species had a significant effect on overall species richness.

We found that most of the species richness appeared in the form of herbaceous

understory.

• Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status showed significant difference

among levels of impact.

Major Findings

• Tree species composition and density among levels of impact.

Tree Species N Mean (in) SD N Mean (in) SD N Mean (in) SD

Acer rubrum 2 8 1.06 17 2.45 2.39 7 6.67857143 1.80

Alnus incana 6 1 20 4.6 4.84

Larix larcina 1 1

Amelanchier canadensis 1 4

Abies balsamea 8 10.84 8.23 75 3.5 1.90

Fagus grandifolia 1 1.5

Betula papyrifera 15 6.93 5.71 6 6.91666667 2.15

Picea mariana 12 8.875 4.23

Picea rubens 49 3.35 3.79 12 2.9375 3.34

Pinus resinosa 26 5.77 3.58

Pinus strobus 49 6.96 5.32 3 16.5833333 0.38

Tsuga canadensis 12 7.7 4.35 42 9.95238095 7.17

Thuja occidentalis 2 3.25 1.77

Total Trees 9 200 157

Impacted Minimally Impacted Reference

Level Of Impact

Major Findings

Comparison of Canopy Cover and its Effect on Species Richness Among Levels of Impact

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Impacted Minimally Impacted Reference

Pe

rce

nt

(%)

Level of Impact

Percent Canopy Cover Among Levels of Impact

P-Value: < .0001

Highly Significant

P-Value: .036

Significantly Different

Major Findings

The Effect of Lawn Species on Total Herbaceous Species Richness

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact: Shrubs

P-Value: .081

Not Significant

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact:

Herbaceous

P-Value: .081

Not Significant

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by vegetation type among Level of Impact: Mosses

P-Value: .016

Significantly Different

Criteria for Obligate Wetland Indicator Status

Leather Leaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata)

• Plants that occur almost always (estimated probability

>99%) in wetlands under natural conditions,

Sphagnum Moss (Sphagnum flexuosum)

Criteria for Facultative Wetland Wetland Indicator Status

• Plants that occur usually (estimated probability >67% to 99%) in wetlands.

Pincushion Moss (Leucobryum glaucum) Bulblet Fern (Cystopteric bulbifera)

Criteria for Facultative Wetland Indicator Status

• Plants with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in

both wetlands and non-wetlands.

Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea) Meadow Sweet (Spiraea ulmaria)

Criteria for Facultative Upland Wetland Indicator Status

• Plants that occur sometimes (estimated probability 1% to < 33%)

Low Bush Blue Berry (Vaccinium angustifolium)

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of

Impact: Obligate

P-Value: .020

Significantly Different

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of

Impact: Facultative Wetland

P-Value: .111

Not Significant

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of Impact:

Facultative

P-Value: .026

Significantly Different

Major Findings

• Compare Species Richness by Wetland Indicator Status among Levels of

Impact: Facultative Upland

P-Value: .040

Significantly Different

Dominant Vegetation Type Per Class Among Levels of Impact.

Level of Impact Vegetation Class Dominant Species (Common) Dominant Species (Scientific) WIS

Reference Trees Balsam Fir Abies balsamea FAC

Reference Shrubs Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata OBL

Reference Herbaceous Bulbet Fern Cystopteric bulbifera FACW

Reference Moss Sphagnum Sphagnum flexuosum OBL

Minimally Impacted Trees Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC

Minimally Impacted Shrubs Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium FACU

Minimally Impacted Herbaceous Sedge Carex spp. FACW

Minimally Impacted Moss Sphagnum Sphagnum flexuosum OBL

Impacted Trees Speckled Alder Alnus incana FACW

Impacted Shrubs Meadowsweet Spiraea ulmaria FAC

Impacted Herbaceous Fine fescue Festuca spp. FAC

Impacted Moss Pincushion Leucobryum glaucum FACW

Recommendations

• Integrate data from all groups to initiate an action plan used for ecological restoration.

• Restore impacted areas by regenerating with species found in reference conditions.

Implications

• Lawn Species do not provide the same ecological benefits that were seen in reference conditions.

• The lack of inputs in impacted areas has great effects on the adjacent aquatic ecosystem (Lower St. Regis).

• Leaf Litter inputs to the lake bottom are low in these areas.

Acknowledgements

• We would like to recognize and thank all whom have made this project possible. Thank you Dr. Craig Milewski, Robert McAleese, Dr. Celia Evans, Randall Swanson, and Dr. Elizabeth Harper. Your help is very much appreciated.