Figure 1. Weighted MCE results. 

 

Using a MCE process, I identified approximately 44,877ha (greater than 4km away) and 30,633ha (greater than 14km away) from caribou habitat for potential prescribed burn areas. Caribou have been found to “strongly [avoid] areas between 10km and 18km from burn boundaries depending on the season” (Robinson et al. 2010a, vii). However, the buffer distances of 4km and 14km have recently been identified by researchers as significant. Robinson et al. recommend that fire within 4km of caribou habitat be closely evaluated (2010a). The distance beyond which fire has few direct effects (although indirect habitat loss through increased interaction between wolves and caribou can still occur (Robinson et al. 2010a)) has been recognized as 14km.

All Whitebark Pine ELC areas are symbolized from lightest to darkest where light is least fitting the MCE criteria, and dark is best fitting the MCE criteria. Whitebark Pine plots inside or within 1km of the Whitebark Pine ELC areas have been symbolized. All Whitebark Pine ELC areas have been included on the map whether or not they have demonstrated Whitebark Pine presence in reality. This decision was made for two reasons: first, it is extremely likely that there are Whitebark Pine stands within the park that have not been identified, and therefore many of these areas have the potential to contain Whitebark stands, and second, and most importantly, park management indicates an interest in burning small areas of potential Whitebark Pine habitat in order to increase the regeneration and habitat area. Therefore, these Whitebark Pine ELC areas may potentially be suitable habitat and good potential burn areas whether or not they contain Whitebark Pine at this time.

            Areas with known Whitebark Pine are symbolized as the best areas to burn; however, this may not be desirable in all cases. For instance, the resilience of the Whitebark Pine population may be increased if some plot locations with healthy, mature trees are left as seed stock (such as cone caging sites, and other areas where the trees have demonstrated higher resilience to threats such as blister rust). Further, it may be unwise and undesirable to burn sites that are used as long-term monitoring stations or for active research.

            The areas within the park identified by the MCE as the most suitable place for a prescribed burned was the central-eastern part of the park, as seen in the inset map of Figure 1. These areas have the highest values, because they are far from caribou habitat and near water which can be viewed as a natural break. In particular, the areas closest to the incidental field observation plots show high MCE values and therefore would be good potential places to burn; in fact, some of the identified areas are located in areas which have been recently prescribed burned, such as the 2003 Syncline Ridge burn. Furthermore, it may be more acceptable from the perspective of park users to burn in this region because of the lower density of publicly advertised trail systems, with the exception of the eastern section of the North Boundary trail.

Nonetheless, a discussion of possible sources of error is important in any analysis, and the largest and most obvious source of error in this research is in the datasets containing information about the current distribution of Whitebark Pine. While the ELC feature class is useful for predicting the presence of Whitebark Pine based on general landscape characteristics (Wilson and Stuart-Smith 2002), the information is not up to date (current as of 1982) and may not accurately represent today's distribution of the species (Befus 2012).  I attempted to account for the inaccuracies within current data sets by assigning more weight to areas closer to known existing plots. However, the plot data I had access to was recorded as points, not areas, which also adds to the inaccuracy of predicting the presence of the species, and the extent of a stand in a given location. Further, the plot data does not represent all Whitebark Pine stands within the park, but only those stands that park managers, scientists, residents and visitors have identified.