Sensitivity of Surface Materials and Vegetation to Disturbance in the Queen Elizabeth Islands: An Approach and Commentary

Résumé

Concern about potential and actual disturbance of surface materials, vegetation and wildlife of the Queen Elizabeth Islands has risen sharply in the last few years. The purpose of this paper is to outline an approach to the problem, based on terrain studies, and to offer a commentary on the recent paper by T.A. Babb and L.C. Bliss in Arctic. … For a rational assessment of the problem, information is required on: a) surface materials - ice content, texture, engineering properties; b) topography and landforms; c) geomorphic processes; d) drainage - seasonal change and single events; e) vegetation - percentage cover and composition by species; f) summer temperatures, and moisture balance in soil; g) wildlife. … Surface materials are very significant elements of the terrain, especially when potential for disturbance is being considered. Hence, surface materials are used by the present writers as a nucleus around which other elements of the terrain are grouped. … Two of the present writers undertook in 1972 an exercise in the mapping of sensitivity at a scale of 1:500,000 of the Queen Elizabeth Islands, based primarily on bedrock maps and extensive personal communications, but found it unsatisfactory because the degree of detail was insufficient to reflect the variability in the sensitivity of the terrain. … [In evaluating the paper by Babb and Bliss, the present authors conclude that]: The overall objective of these authors in emphasizing the "susceptibility of the soils and vegetation to surface disturbance" is good. However the methods used to achieve this objective are inconsistent, and in several cases the results are inaccurate. A serious deficiency is that the criteria for determining categories of "susceptibility" are obscure. … The "Polar Desert" category is described as an area with 10% or less plant cover, low susceptibility to disturbance and low ground ice content. One interpretation of this seems to be that poorly-vegetated areas are less susceptible to disturbance of vegetation than are more densely vegetated areas. Only in so far as a low plant density lessens the probability of direct impact of vehicles on plants is this interpretation obviously true. A sparsely vegetated area may be an important, or even critical, range for ungulates; therefore the effect of disturbance of it could be great. The type of vegetation - such as willow, sedge, saxifrage, grass or bryophyte - is a vital consideration. An alternative interpretation is that unvegetated areas (90% of the Polar Desert category, classed as "soils") have a low sensitivity to surface disturbance. This is not true for some major areas of both eastern Melville Island and Western Ellesmere Island where highly sensitive surfaces, almost devoid of vegetation, are subject to extensive slope failure or thermokarst development, even without disturbance. Where the authors have left their major field of expertise and have commented on geology and geomorphology, weaknesses are evident. They appear to draw a direct relationship between active-layer soil moisture and "susceptibility". For overland travel this is generally true, but if excavation penetrates the shallow active layer and the frost table, then the relationship certainly no longer holds. Furthermore, the implication of a relationship between susceptibility, ice content and vegetation cover is simplistic and can be misleading. The assertion that "10% or more vegetation cover indicates the existence of sufficient moisture for the segregation of horizontal ice layers" is without basis. The present writers have drilled over 300 shallow (1-6 m) holes in eastern Melville Island and western Ellesmere Island to evaluate ice content and have found the relationship between vegetation, ground ice and materials to be complex. …