Changes to wildlife habitat on agricultural land in Canada,

Transcription

1 Changes to wildlife habitat on agricultural land in Canada, S. K. Javorek 1, R. Antonowitsch 2, C. Callaghan 3, M. Grant 1, and T. Weins 2 1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 32 Main St., Kentville, Nova Scotia, Canada B4N 1J5; 2 Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada, 1800 Hamilton Street, Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4P 4L2; 3 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, K.W. Neatby Bldg., 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0C6. Received 13 October 2005, accepted 6 November Javorek, S. K., Antonowitsch, R., Callaghan, C., Grant, M. and Weins, T Changes to wildlife habitat on agricultural land in Canada, Can. J. Soil Sci. 87: Agricultural land in Canada comprises cultivated land, hayland and grazing land with associated riparian areas, wetlands, woodlands, and natural grasslands. Although these agro-ecosystems support many species of Canada s native fauna, agricultural land use is dynamic, and changes in agricultural practices can have important implications for biodiversity. We report on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada s National Agri-environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program s assessment of wildlife habitat on farmland in Canada. Habitat use matrices were developed for 493 species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians associated with farmland habitat in Canada. We derived patterns of land use from Statistics Canada s Census of Agriculture data and applied them at the soil landscape polygon scale. We developed a proportionally weighted Habitat Capacity index to relate habitat use and land use. A 5% decrease in Habitat Capacity occurred on Canada s agricultural land from 1981 to 2001, associated with an expansion in cropland and a decline in pasture. A regional pattern of small decline in Habitat Capacity is evident in the Prairie Provinces, where dramatic declines in the use of summerfallow had a positive impact on Habitat Capacity. In eastern Canada, greater decreases in Habitat Capacity occurred, associated with an increase in agricultural intensification. Policies and programs designed to sustain biodiversity should not be developed independently of socioeconomic factors or policies favouring agricultural intensification. We recommend a holistic approach to making policy decisions relevant to environmental and economic sustainability in the Canadian agricultural landscape. Key words: Biodiversity, land use change, agroecosystems, wildlife habitat, indicators Javorek, S. K., Antonowitsch, R., Callaghan, C., Grant, M. et Weins, T L évolution de l habitat faunique sur les terres agricoles du Canada entre 1981 et Can. J. Soil Sci. 87: Les terres agricoles du Canada servent aux cultures, à la production de foin et à la paissance. S y associent des zones riveraines, des terres humides, des boisés et des prairies naturelles. Bien que ces écosystèmes agricoles servent d habitat à un grand nombre d espèces indigènes du Canada, l exploitation des terres n est pas statique et l évolution des pratiques agricoles a parfois de lourdes conséquences sur la biodiversité. Les auteurs proposent une évaluation du Programme national d analyse et de rapport en matière de santé agroenvironnementale d Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada concernant l habitat faunique des terres agricoles canadiennes. Ils ont élaboré des grilles sur l utilisation de l habitat par 493 espèces d oiseaux, de mammifères, de reptiles et d amphibiens associées à l habitat des terres agricoles canadiennes. Les tendances relatives à la vocation des terres ont été dérivées des données du Recensement de l agriculture de Statistique Canada avant d être appliquées à l échelle des polygones de pédopaysage. Les auteurs ont ensuite créé un indicateur pondéré de la capacité d habitat reliant l utilisation de l habitat à l exploitation des terres. La capacité d habitat des terres agricoles canadiennes a diminué de 5 % entre 1981 et On associe cette baisse à l expansion des cultures et au recul des pâturages. Une légère baisse de la capacité d habitat est une tendance régionale manifeste dans les provinces des Prairies où l abandon draconien de la jachère estivale a eu une incidence positive sur la capacité d habitat. Dans l est du pays, en revanche, on note une plus grande diminution de la capacité d habitat, principalement à la suite de l intensification des activités agricoles. On ne devrait pas élaborer de politiques ou de programmes visant à soutenir la biodiversité sans tenir compte des facteurs ou des politiques socioéconomiques qui favorisent une intensification de l agriculture. Les auteurs recommandent une approche holistique à la prise de décisions sur les politiques qui se rapportent à l environnement et aux politiques économiques durables pour l agriculture canadienne. Mots clés: Biodiversité, évolution de la vocation des terres, écosystèmes agricoles, habitat faunique, indicateurs Agricultural land comprises 8% of Canada s landscape, and contains the most fertile soil and favourable conditions for agricultural production. Agricultural landscapes in Canada comprise cultivated lands, haylands and grazing lands with associated riparian, wetlands, woodlands, and natural grasslands. In western Canada, fruit and vegetable production and livestock rangeland dominate agriculture in British Columbia, while grains, oilseeds, and livestock rangeland are predominant in the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba). In central Canada (Ontario and Quebec), livestock production, cash crops, and dairy 225 farming are the most important agricultural production, and in the Maritime Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland) potato production and dairy farming predominate (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2003). In the 2001 Census of Agriculture, Canadian farmers reported managing 36.4 million ha of cropland, 4.8 Abbreviations: HC, Habitat Capacity Index; NAHARP, National Agri-environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program; SLC, Soil Landscapes of Canada

2 226 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE million ha of tame pasture, 15.4 million ha of native pasture, and 4.6 million ha of All Other Lands (including woodlots and wetlands) (Statistics Canada 2002). These agroecosystems support many species of Canada s native fauna. As land managers, agricultural producers play a significant role in sustaining biodiversity. Sedimentation and siltation of aquatic habitat (Walser and Bart 1999; Whiles et al. 2000), wetland drainage (Smith 1990; Lemly et al. 2000; Watmough et al. 2002; DeVries et al. 2003; Jenkins et al. 2003), cultivation of natural grasslands (Schmutz 1987; Clayton and Schmutz 1999; Larsen and Work 2003; Davis 2004), overgrazing (Sansom 1999; Mayer 2004; Valone and Saunter 2005), loss of riparian vegetation (Cooper 1993; Stauffer et al. 2000; Popotnik and Giuliano 2000) and loss and fragmentation of forest cover (Hobson and Bayne 2000; Cumming et al. 2001; Bélanger and Grenier 2002; Tchir et al. 2004) affect wildlife habitat and can impact biodiversity negatively. Conversely, conservation tillage (Uri et al. 1999; Chan 2001; Mas and Verdu 2003), maintaining or restoring hedgerows (Trnka et al. 1990; Hinsley and Bellamy 2000; Jobin et al. 2001; Boutin et al. 2002; Ouin and Burel 2002), managed grazing on natural grasslands (Howe 1994; Jackson 1999; McIntyre et al. 2003), managing livestock in riparian areas (Tewksbury et al. 2002; Asamoah et al. 2003; Popp et al. 2004) and buffering riparian areas (Chapman and Ribic 2002; Jobin et al. 2004) can have a positive effect on biodiversity. Agricultural landscapes comprised a mosaic of wildlife habitats, each providing for some or all of the life history needs (e.g., breeding, feeding, wintering, staging, and cover) of a wide range of species. Land use decisions affect wildlife use of the agricultural landscape. Few crops, for example, provide all of the required resources for wildlife species. Undisturbed wetlands and riparian areas, however, provide for all of the life history needs of many species. Moreover, the value of some agricultural habitats is limited by the ability of adjacent habitat types to provide the remainder of required resources. There is a growing concern among Canadians regarding the sustainability of wildlife and their habitats. Maintaining wildlife populations is a major environmental priority in Canada (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians 2000). In 1992, Canada signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, the first global agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (United Nations Environment Program 1992). From this agreement emerged a need to understand the diversity of species on the earth and the effects of human activities on biodiversity (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Biodiversity Working Group, Biodiversity Convention Office, Canadian Biodiversity Strategy 1995). One of the approaches recommended for presenting knowledge of biodiversity to decision-makers is through establishing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services (Balmford et al. 2005). The Agriculture Policy Framework is a key piece of Canadian policy that focuses on sustainable farming using environmentally sustainable practices (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2002). The National Agri-environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program (NAHARP) was initiated by Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada to measure key environmental conditions, risks, and changes resulting from agriculture (McRae et al. 2000) in a set of environmental indicators. Among these, the NAHARP wildlife habitat indicator is designed to assess changes in agricultural land use and concurrent changes in wildlife habitat on farmland in Canada. The current version of the indicator assesses changes in habitat of terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) to habitat availability on Canadian agricultural land over time. Although habitat changes due to agricultural activities may have occurred within other taxonomic groups of wildlife such as insects and vascular plants, the current iteration of the indicator does not include these groups. We used land cover data from a national quinquennial survey of agricultural producers (Census of Agriculture; Statistics Canada) from and habitat use data for 493 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians to derive a Habitat Capacity Index (HC). We assessed trends in habitat capacity on agricultural lands for Canada and for each of the ten provinces in Canada. In this study, we considered wildlife to be terrestrial vertebrate animal species. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-eight sub-habitat types were categorized in the matrices and included various types of crop, pasture, forest, wetland, riparian, and shelterbelt habitats (Table1). These habitat categories were then nested into five broad habitat types that coincided with the Census of Agriculture land cover types: cropland, summerfallow, tame pasture, natural land for pasture, and All Other Land. The precision of the All Other Land habitat category was the poorest, and the limitations of these data are discussed in the Results and Discussion section. Habitat Use Matrices were developed for 493 species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians associated with farmland habitat (Neave and Neave 1998; contact S. Javorek for species list). A species list and habitat use information were compiled through literature review and expert opinion. A habitat association matrix was constructed for each species and comprised information on habitat use (breeding, feeding, cover, loafing, staging and wintering) and habitat value (primary, secondary and tertiary). Primary habitat was considered critical habitat, without which the species cannot use the area (e.g., nesting habitat), but also included strongly preferred habitat. Secondary habitat was considered neither critical nor strongly preferred (e.g., animal can use several crop types, none of which are critical to its survival). Data on breeding, feeding and cover were the most robust and, therefore, only these three habitat use categories were retained to develop the Habitat Capacity Index. The Habitat Use Matrices were converted to a relational database for improved querying and spatial analyses. Occurrence data from a species status report (Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council 2001) were used to develop a comprehensive habitat matrix for each province. Changes in Agricultural land use information were derived from the Census of Agriculture data (Statistics Canada 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997a, 2003) reallocated to the

3 JAVOREK ET AL. WILDLIFE HABITAT ON CANADIAN FARMLAND 227 Table 1. Habitat categories in the Canadian agricultural landscape Habitat Sub habitat Cereals Winter cereals Oilseeds Corn Soybeans Vegetables Berries Fruit trees Other crops Sod Pulses Tame hay Summerfallow Summerfallow Tame/seeded pasture Tame/seeded pasture Natural land for pasture Grassland Natural land for pasture Grassland/shrubs/woodland Anthropogenic Idle land old field Woodlot plantation Woodlot with interior Woodlot without interior Shelterbelts/treed Shelterbelts/grass-herbaceous all other land Riparian/woody Riparian/grassy-herbaceous Riparian/agriculture/crop Wetland with margins Wetland without margins Wetland/open water Wetland/peatland Wetland/treed/shrubby swamp Soil Landscapes of Canada (SLC) polygon (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004). Land use data from the Census were projected on digital, broad-scale (1:1 million) SLC maps containing information about soil properties and landforms. Each SLC polygon is described by a standard set of attributes, including soil type, surface form, slope, water table depth, and lakes and forms part of Canada s ecological stratification (Soil Landscapes of Canada Working Group 2005). Although soil and topographical attributes were not used for the analyses, the soil landscape polygons represent unique ecological regions that constrain the type of agricultural production and are thus appropriate for projecting agricultural land use and wildlife habitat information. Using information in the habitat matrices, we developed a HC to assess the impact of land cover change on wildlife habitat availability on agricultural land in Canada. Habitat Capacity is a proportionally weighted index that relates the number of species using each of the five broad land cover categories in the Census of Agriculture (primary or secondary habitat use for breeding or feeding or cover) to the relative proportion occupied by each habitat category in each SLC polygon, as calculated in the following formula: HC = ln (#spp. CRPL %CRPL) + ln (#spp. SF %SF) + ln (#spp. NLP %NLP) + ln (#spp. TP %TP) + ln (#spp. AOL %AOL) Where HC = habitat capacity, ln = natural log, #spp = number of species using that habitat type, CRPL = cropland, SF = summerfallow, NLP = native land for pasture, TP = tame pasture and AOL = all other land. National and Provincial HC values were calculated for 5 Census of Agriculture reporting years (1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001). A 20-yr change in HC (national and provincial) was reported by five classes: negligible to small change ( 2.5% to +2.5%), moderate increase (>2.5% to 10%), moderate decrease (< 2.5% to 10%), large increase (>10%), and large decrease (< 10%). SLC polygons were assigned to only one province where an overlap occurred. Following natural log (ln) transformation to normalize the data, HC was calculated for each SLC polygon to produce SLC-specific HC values, and these data were scaled up to the provincial scale. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION From 1981 to 2001, several key changes in agricultural practices occurred that likely influenced changes in Habitat Capacity for wildlife on Canadian agricultural lands (Statistics Canada 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997a, 2002; Table 4). Most notably, a strong decline in summerfallow practices occurred in the Prairie Provinces, with a corresponding increase in croplands (Table 4). Also in the Prairie Provinces, production of cereal grains decreased as agricultural production became more diversified (to livestock production and specialty crops). s increased in all provinces except for British Columbia from 1981 to 2001 (Table 4). Natural pasture declined in all provinces, and tame pasture declined in British Columbia and in central and eastern Canada (Table 4). All Other Land increased in all provinces except Prince Edward Island (Table 4). The majority of agricultural land across Canada (51%) experienced negligible to small change in Habitat Capacity from 1981 and 2001 (Table 2). HC decreased on 30% of agricultural land and increased on 20% of agricultural land. In total, wildlife HC decreased by 5% on Canada s agricultural land from 1981 to 2001 (Table 3). The driving forces for this national decrease appear to have been an expansion in the relative percentage of cropland, from 47 to 54% (Table 4) of all farmland, and a decline in species-rich natural pasture (25 to 23%; Table 4). Although there were some improvements in wildlife habitat trends, they did not completely offset the declines. The most important Census habitat category for wildlife, All Other Land, (which includes wetlands and woodlands) increased its share of the national agricultural landscape from 7 to 9% (Table 4). Another important trend was a reduction (from 15 to 7%; Table 4) in the species-impoverished summerfallow habitat as a proportion of Canadian farmland. Although HC declined in all but one province over 20 yr, regional patterns emerge from the data. A general trend of small decline in Habitat Capacity is evident in the Prairie Provinces, where dramatic declines in the use of summerfallow, and increase in permanent cover programs had a positive impact on Habitat Capacity. In eastern Canada, greater decreases in Habitat Capacity were evident, associated with an increase in agricultural intensification (i.e., relative increase in cropland and coincident loss of tame pasture and natural pasture (Table 4).

4 228 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE Table 2. Changes in wildlife habitat capacity on farmland in Canada between 1981 and 2001 Large increase z Moderate increase z Negligible to small change z Moderate decrease z Large decrease z Province >10% >2.5% to 10% 2.49 to 2.49 < 2.5% to 10% < 10% BC Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec New Brunswick Nova Scotia PEI Newfoundland Canada z Change in proportionally weighted calculation of Habitat Capacity Index. Table 3. Change in habitat capacity for 493 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians on agricultural land in Canada, 1981 to 2001 Habitat capacity % change z % change z % change z % change z % change z Province Newfoundland PEI Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta BC Canada z Change in proportionally weighted calculation of Habitat Capacity Index. In 2001, British Columbia producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity decreased in British Columbia on 50% of farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 1). Negligible to small changes occurred on 38% of farmland, while HC increased on 12% of farmland. In total, HC decreased by less than 2% from 1981 to 2001 (Table 3). Negative trends influencing the slight provincial decline in HC were a decline in the relative share of farmland occupied by tame pasture (12 to 9%). These negative trends were partially counterbalanced by a slight decrease in the relative share of cropland (26 to 24%) and an increase in the relative share of All Other Land (12 to 19%; Table 4). In 2001, Alberta producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Negligible to small changes in Habitat Capacity occurred in Alberta on 59% of farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 1). HC decreased on 27% of farmland and increased on 14% of farmland. In total, HC decreased by less than 1% between 1981 and 2001 (Table 3). Positive changes for wildlife habitat include a relative increase in All Other Land (4 to 6%) and a reduction of summerfallow (12 to 6%). Negative changes consisted of a relative expansion of cropland (44% to 46%) and a drop in tame pasture (11 to 8%; Table 4). In 2001, Saskatchewan producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Negligible to small changes in Habitat Capacity occurred in Saskatchewan on 55% of farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 1). HC increased on 35% of agricultural land and decreased on 9% of farmland. Saskatchewan is the only province across Canada where an increase in HC occurred (1%) between 1981 and 2001 (Table 3). This increase was influenced by a relative increase in the All Other Land category (2 to 5% of farmland) and a significant reduction in the relative proportion of summerfallow (26 to 12%). These positive trends were slightly stronger than the negative trends, which included an expansion of cropland (45 to 59%) and a reduction in natural pasture (from 23 to 20%; Table 4). In 2001, Manitoba producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Negligible to small changes in Habitat Capacity occurred in Manitoba on 75% of farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 1). HC decreased on 18% of farmland and increased on 7% of farmland. In total, HC declined by less than 1% from 1981 and 2001 (Table 3). Counterbalancing trends that resulted in fairly stable HC at the provincial scale include cropland expansion (58 to 62%), an increase in All Other Land (5 to 9%) and a relative reduction in summerfallow (8 to 3%; Table 4). In 2001, Ontario producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity

5 JAVOREK ET AL. WILDLIFE HABITAT ON CANADIAN FARMLAND 229 Total agricultural Summerfallow Tame pasture Natural land for pasture land British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec New Brunswick Nova Scotia PEI Newfoundland Canada z Adapted from Statistics Canada Census of Agriculture 1981, 2001, Ottawa, ON. decreased on 94% of Ontario farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 2). Negligible to small changes occurred on 5% of farmland. In total, HC declined by 6% from 1981 to 2001 (Table 3). This decline can be attributed to an increase in the relative percentage of cropland (60 to 67%), a decrease in natural pasture (13 to 10%), and a decrease in tame pasture (11 to 6%). The increase in All Other Land (15 to 17%; Table 4) did not fully offset the negative trend. In 2001, Quebec producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity decreased on 99% of Quebec farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 2). Negligible to small changes occurred on 1% of farmland. In total, HC declined by 10% from 1981 to 2001 (Table 3). This negative trend was influenced by a decrease in natural pasture (9 to 5%) and tame pasture (12 to 5%) and a relative increase in cropland (47 to 54%; Table 4). In 2001, New Brunswick producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity decreased on 88% of New Brunswick farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 2). Negligible to small changes occurred on 12% of farmland. In total, HC declined by 9% from 1981 to 2001 (Table 3). This negative trend was influenced by a relative increase in cropland (30 to 39%) and a decrease in natural pasture (10 to 7%) and tame pasture (10 to 5%; Table 4). In 2001, Nova Scotia producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity decreased on 88% of Nova Scotia farmland and negligible to small changes occurred on 12% of farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 2). In total, HC declined by 8% from 1891 to 2001 (Table 3). This negative trend was influenced by the expansion of cropland (24 to 31% of farmland) and a reduction in natural pasture (10% to 8%) and tame pasture (10 to 6%; Table 4). In 2001, Prince Edward Island producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity decreased on all farmland in Prince Edward Island from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 2). In total, HC decreased by 12% between 1981 and 2001 (Table 3). Drivers of this negative trend include a relative increase in cropland (56 to 67%) and a decrease in tame pasture (13 to 5%) and All Other Land (25 to 24%; Table 4). In 2001, Newfoundland and Labrador producers reported ha of agricultural land (Statistics Canada 2002). Habitat Capacity decreased on 66% of Newfoundland and Labrador farmland and increased on 12% of farmland from 1981 to 2001 (Table 2, Fig. 2). Negligible to small changes in HC occurred on 22% of agricultural land. In total, HC decreased by 6% between 1981 and 2001 (Table 3). This decline was coincident with an increase in the relative proportion cropland (14 to 21%) and a decrease in natural pasture (52 to 17%) and tame pasture (12 to 6%; Table 4). Given the relatively small percentage of agricultural land in Newfoundland and Labrador (0.1% of land cover), however, agriculture can be expected to have minimal effects on wildlife at the provincial scale. Our results indicate that wildlife used habitat types on agricultural land in Canada disproportionate to availability for breeding, feeding and cover. A total of 181 (37%) wildlife species use for at least one resource, but only 59 (12%) can find all required resources for breeding, feeding, and cover within this habitat. In contrast, 468 (95%) species can obtain at least one required resource from habitats represented in the All Other Land Category, and 429 (87%) can find all resources for breeding, feeding, cover (given minimum required patch sizes are met). The NAHARP wildlife habitat indicator is currently the only environmental indicator that considers the impact of agriculture on wildlife habitat in Canada. The utility of an indicator is reflected by the availability, consistency, and quality of its data. As such, there are several key limitations to our approach. The current use of All Other Land by the Census of Agriculture (Statistics Canada 2002) to encompass a variety of habitat types is insensitive to changes in specific critical habitats such as wetlands and woodlands. Consequently, we were unable to determine the mechanism of change in AOL. Moreover, errors in reporting habitat classes in the Census of Agriculture influenced the outcome of the Habitat Capacity Index. In the 1981 Census of Agriculture, the area of Natural Land for Pasture was underreported in the four western provinces. This affected the area for the total farmland and all other land categories for each of the Western provinces and for Canada (Statistics Canada 1997b). To redress the limitations of the AOL data, future development of the indicator includes use of remote sensing and aerial photography for monitoring wildlife habitat distribution not currently monitored by the Census of Agriculture. Also, the indicator does not currently consider

6 230 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE Fig. 1. Change in wildlife habitat capacity on western Canadian farmland between 1981 and habitat quality (fragmentation, connectivity, spatial configuration, forest interior habitat) because data on quality parameters are unavailable nationally. We have initiated smaller scale studies to measure change in the connectivity and configuration of wildlife habitat patches to address this information gap. Moreover, the indicator does not currently relate changes in wildlife habitat on agricultural land to the response of wildlife populations. Use of population time series data such as Breeding Bird Surveys could be used to address this gap in future iterations of the indicator. Through their activities and decisions, Canadian agricultural producers are a major driving force of wildlife Habitat Capacity. Substantial benefits to biodiversity and all Canadians are realized when producers sustain natural habitat. Maintaining or increasing the Habitat Capacity of agricultural land requires a thoughtful approach. Information is best gathered regionally and locally, where planners can work with landowners to set habitat goals and objectives that meet the needs of a variety of species. Most farmers understand the value of conserving wildlife and wildlife habitat, but extension practice and incentive programs can further this understanding and encourage the voluntary participation of landowners in implementing land management practices that favour wildlife. Such beneficial management practices include developing and implementing an Environmental Farm Plan, conserving riparian areas (buffer strips), adopting conservation tillage systems, implementing rotational grazing systems, converting marginal cropland to permanent cover, conserving remaining natural habitats, and adopting integrated pest management systems. Initiatives to encourage the adoption of beneficial management practices are underway in regions across Canada and are supported by various levels of government. Such programs in Canada and elsewhere have demonstrated positive benefits for wildlife habitat (Dunn et al. 1993; Uri et al. 1999; McMaster and Davis 2001), although perceived benefits of all agro-environmental policies should be closely scrutinized (Henningsen and Best 2005). Conserving biodiversity and the goods and services it provides is essential to long-term human interest (Balmford et al. 2002). Although converting natural habitats such as wetlands to agriculture has accrued short-term benefits to agricultural producers (given drainage subsidies), the long-

7 JAVOREK ET AL. WILDLIFE HABITAT ON CANADIAN FARMLAND 231 Fig. 2. Change in wildlife habitat capacity on Eastern Canadian farmland between 1981 and term societal benefits of keeping natural lands intact may outweigh short-term gains from degrading such habitats (van Vuuren and Roy 1993). Policies developed to address environmental sustainability should not be developed in isolation of socioeconomic factors (Balmford et al. 2005) or research and policies favouring agricultural intensification (Belanger et al. 2002; Jobin et al. 2004). We recommend a holistic approach to making policy decisions relevant to environmental and economic sustainability in the Canadian agricultural landscape. Moreover, to adequately inform policy, indicator and monitoring programs should address their analyses at a scale appropriate to detect effects of land use change and incorporate emerging anthropogenic threats relevant to agricultural land use (Jobin et al. 2004). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We appreciate the contribution of Erin Neave and Peter Neave to the development of the Wildlife Habitat Indicator. Lisa Twolan (Environment Canada) provided valuable species distribution data. Derek Brewin (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) translated the original matrices into a relational database. Valuable review and comments to an earlier edition of the manuscript were provided by Cathy Neilsen (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), Alain Baril (Environment Canada), Carolyn O Neill (Environment Canada), George Hamilton, Chris Shank, Dave Prescott, Harry Stelfox, Terry Kosinski, and John Tackaberry (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development), Amanda Manuel (Keystone Agriculture Producers), Karla Guyn (Ducks Unlimited), and Michael Watmough (Environment Canada). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture policy framework. [Online] Available: [2006 Jul. 31]. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada An overview of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system. Strategic Research Policy and Planning Team. Publication No. 2211E. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Reallocated census of agriculture to soil landscapes of Canada version 3.0. Asamoah, S. A., Bork, E. W., Irving, B. D., Price, M. A. and Hudson, R. J Cattle herbage utilization under high-density rotational grazing in the Aspen Parkland. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83: Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S.,

8 232 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE Green, R. E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jassamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S. Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K. and Turner, R. K Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: Balmford, A, Bennun, L. ten Brink, B., Cooper, D., Côte, I. M., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Dudley, N., Dutton, I., Green, R. E. Gregory, R. D., Harrison, J., Kennedy, E. T., Kremen, K., Leader-Williams, N., Lovejoy, T. E. Mace, G., May, R., Mayaux, P., Morling, P., Phillips, J., Redford, K.Ricketts, T. H., Rodriguez, J. P., Sanjayan, M., Schei, P. J., van Jaarsveld, A. S. and Walther, B. A The convention on biological diversity s 2010 target. Science 307: Bélanger, L. and Grenier, M Agriculture intensification and forest fragmentation in the St. Lawrence Valley, Québec, Canada. Landscape Ecol. 17: Boutin, C., Jobin, B., Bélanger, L. and Choiniere, L Plant diversity in three types of hedgerows adjacent to cropfields. Biodivers. Conserv. 1: Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council Wildlife species 2000: The general status of species in Canada. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, ON. Chan, K. Y An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance and diversity: Implications for functioning in soils. Soil Tillage Res. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 57: Chapman, E. W. and Ribic, C. A The impact on buffer strips and stream-side grazing on small mammals in southwestern Wisconsin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88: Clayton, K. M. and Schutz, J. K Is the decline of Burrowing Owls Speotyto cunicularia in prairie Canada linked to changes in Great Plains ecosystems? Bird Conserv. Int. 9: Cooper, C. M Biological effects of agriculturally derived surface water pollutants on aquatic systems a review. J. Environ. Qual. 22: Cumming, E. E., Hobson, K. A. and Van Wilgenburg, S. L Breeding bird declines in the Boreal forest fringe of western Canada: Insights from long-term BBS routes. Can. Field-Nat. 115: Davis, S. K Area sensitivity in grassland passerines: Effects of patch size, patch shape, and vegetation structure on bird abundance and occurrence in southern Saskatchewan Auk 121: De Vries, J. H., Citta, J. J., Lindberg, M. S., Howerter, D. W. and Anderson, M. G, Breeding-season survival of mallard females in the prairie pothole region of Canada. J. Wildl. Manage. 67: Dunn, C. D., Sterns, F., Guntenspergen, G. R. and Sharle, D. M Ecological benefits of the conservation reserve program. Conserv. Biol. 7: Federal-Provincial-Territorial Biodiversity Working Group, Biodiversity Convention Office, Canadian Biodiversity Strategy Canada s response to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, ON. (Cat. No. En21 134/1995E). Available: intro.html [2006 Jul. 31]. Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians The importance of nature to Canadians. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, ON. (Cat. No. En /2000E). Henningsen, J. C. and Best, L. B Grassland bird use of riparian filter strips in Southeast Iowa. J. Wildl. Manage. 69: Hinsley, S. A. and Bellamy, P. E The influence of hedge structure, management and landscape context on the value of hedgerows to birds: A review. J. Environ. Manage. 60: Hobson. K. A. and Bayne, E Effects of forest fragmentation by agriculture on avian communities in the southern boreal mixedwoods of western Canada. Wilson Bull. 112: Howe, H. F Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: Assumptions and implications. Conserv. Biol. 8: Jackson, L. L Establishing tallgrass prairie on grazed permanent pasture in the upper Midwest. Rest. Ecol. 7: Jenkins, D. G., Grissom, S. and Miller, K Consequences of prairie wetland drainage for crustacean biodiversity and metapopulations. Conserv. Biol. 17: Jobin, B., Choiniere, L. and Bélanger, L Bird use of three types of field margins in relation to intensive agriculture in Quebec, Canada Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 84: Jobin, B. Bélanger, L., Boutin, C. and Maisonneuve, C Conservation value of riparian strips in the Boyer River watershed, Québec, Canada. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 103: Larsen, K. J. and Work, T. W Differences in ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of original and reconstructed tallgrass prairies in northeastern Iowa, USA, and impact of 3-year spring burn cycles. J. Insect Conserv. 7: Lemly, A. D., Kingsford, R. T. and Thompson, J. R Irrigated agriculture and wildlife conservation: Conflict on a global scale. Environ. Manage. 25: Mas, M. T. and Verdu, A. M. C Tillage system effects on weed communities in a 4-year crop rotation under Mediterranean dryland conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 74: Mayer, C Pollination services under different grazing intensities. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 24: McIntyre, S., Heard, K. M. and Martin, T. G The relative importance of cattle grazing in subtropical grasslands: Does it reduce or enhance plant biodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 40: McMaster, G. and S. K. Davis An evaluation of Canada s permanent cover program: Habitat for grassland birds? J. Field Ornithol. 72: McRae, T., Smith, C. A. S. and Gregorich, L. J. (eds.) Environmental sustainability of Canadian agriculture: Report of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON. 224 pp. Neave, P. and Neave, E Habitat and habitat availability indicator. Technical Report for the Agri-Environmental Indicator project. Environment Bureau, Policy Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, ON. 193 pp. Ouin, A. and Burel, F Influence of herbaceous elements on butterfly diversity in hedgerow agricultural landscapes Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93: Popp, M., Chorney, B. and Keisling, T A case study on rotational grazing and riparian zone management: Implications for producers and a conservation agency. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 33: Popotnik, G. J. and Giuliano, W. M Response of birds to grazing of riparian zones. J. Wildl. Manage. 64: Sansom, A. L Upland vegetation management: The impacts of overstocking. Water Sci. Technol. 39: Schmutz, J. K The effect of agriculture on Ferruginous and Swainson s hawks. J. Range Manage. 40: Smith, B. J Avian cholera and temporal changes in wetland numbers and densities in Nebraska s USA rainwater basin area. Wetlands 10: 1 6. Soil Landscapes of Canada Working Group Soil

9 JAVOREK ET AL. WILDLIFE HABITAT ON CANADIAN FARMLAND 233 Landscapes of Canada v3.0. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (digital map and database at 1:1 million scale). Statistics Canada Census of Agriculture Ottawa, ON. Statistics Canada Census of agriculture Catalogue No Ottawa, ON. Statistics Canada Census of agriculture Catalogue No Ottawa, ON. Statistics Canada. 1997a. Census of agriculture Catalogue No. 93 F0038XIE. Ottawa, ON. Statistics Canada1997b. Historical overview of Canadian agriculture. Catalogue No XPB.Ottawa, ON. Statistics Canada Census of agriculture Catalogue No. 94F0047XIE. Available: [2006 Jul. 31]. Stauffer, J. C., Goldstein, R. M. and Newman, R. W Relationship of wooded riparian zones and runoff potential to fish community composition in agricultural streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: Tchir, T. L., Johnson, E. A. and Miyanishi, K A model of fragmentation in the Canadian boreal forest. Can. J. For. Res. 34: Tewksbury, J. J.,Black, A. E., Nur, N., Saab, V. A., Logan, B. D. and Dobkin, D. S Effects of anthropogenic fragmentation and livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities. Stud. Avian Biol. 25: Trnka, P., Rozkosny, R., Gaisler, J. and Houskova, L Importance of windbreaks for ecological diversity in agricultural landscape. Ekologia 9: United Nationals Environment Program Convention on biological diversity. Available: [2006 Jul. 31]. Uri, N. D., Atwood, J. D. and Sanabria, J The environmental benefits and costs of conservation tillage. Environ. Geol. 38: Valone, T. J. and Saunter, P Effects of long-term cattle exclosure on vegetation and rodents at a desertified arid grassland site. J. Arid Environ. 61: Van Vurren, W. and Roy, P Private and social returns from wetland preservation versus those from wetland conversion to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 8: Walser, C. A. and Bart, H. L Influence of agriculture on in-stream habitat and fish community structure in Piedmont watersheds of the Chattahoochee River System. Ecol. Freshwat. Fish 8: Watmough, M. D., Ingstrup, D., Duncan, D. and Schinke, H Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Monitoring Program Phase I: Recent habitat trends in NAWMP targeted landscapes. Technical Report Series No Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton, AB. Whiles, M. R., Brock, B. L., Franzen, A. C. and Dinsmore, S. C Stream invertebrate communities, water quality and land use patterns in an agricultural drainage basin of northeastern Nebraska, USA. Environ. Manage. 26:

10