|
ecocliffchick
Mar 3, 2006, 2:30 PM
Post #1 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
As some of you may know, I've completed my research on "impacts of climbing on cliff vegetation" with the Cliff Ecology Research Group at the University of Guelph. The main result of this research reveals that climbed cliffs do have less dense and less diverse vegetation when compared with unclimbed cliffs - however, this is because climbers select cliffs that support less vegetation to begin with. It is not a result of climbing disturbance.
The research has just been published in the journal Conservation Biology. Already media attention has been generated and the popular scientific journal "Science" has a blurb on their Science NOW website:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/science-shots/
Let's hope the positive press continues. It should help climber access.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 3, 2006, 2:45 PM
Post #2 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
That's quite a statement. I've seen the very real damage done at many, many crags over three decades of use, so I'd have to differ with that rather amazing conclusion. Got science? How about a statement of methodology...
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Mar 3, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #3 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
I applaud your research. I would like to read your full paper though, because I too have a hard time buying the conclusion that there is no impact cause by climbing because I have cleaned vegetation off climbs myself. Perhaps little impact, or no significant impact, I could agree with. But I'm open to seeing what your research has to say about it.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Mar 3, 2006, 3:02 PM
Post #4 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
This research has undergone extensive peer review of it's methodology. Here's the abstract from the Cons. Biol. article:
Influences of Microhabitat Constraints and Rock-Climbing Disturbance on Cliff-Face Vegetation Communities
KATHRYN LYNNE KUNTZ* AND DOUGLAS W. LARSON*†
Many researchers report that rock climbing has significant negative effects on cliff biota. Most work on climbing disturbance, however, has not controlled for variation in microsite characteristics when comparing areas with and without climbing presence. Additionally, some researchers do not identify the style or difficulty level of climbing routes sampled or select climbing routes that do not represent current trends in the sport.
We solved these problems by sampling climbing areas used by advanced "sport" climbers and quantifying differences in microtopography between climbed and control cliffs. We determined whether differences in vegetation existed between pristine and sport-climbed cliff faces when microsite factors were not controlled. We then determined the relative influence of the presence of climbing, cliff-face microtopography, local physical factors, and regional geography on the richness, abundance, and community composition of cliff-face vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens.
When we did not control for microsite differences among cliffs, our results were consistent with the majority of prior work on impacts of climbing (i.e., sport-climbed cliff faces supported a lower mean richness of vascular plants and bryophytes and significantly different frequencies of individual species when compared with pristine cliff faces). When we investigated the relative influences of microtopography and climbing disturbance, however, the differences in vegetation were not related to climbing disturbance but rather to the selection by sport climbers of cliff faces with microsite characteristics that support less vegetation. Climbed sites had not diverged toward a separate vegetation community; instead, they supported a subset of the species found on pristine cliff faces.
Prior management recommendations to restrict development of new climbing routes should be reevaluated based on our results.
(Full text available through Blackwell Synergy Publishers)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 3, 2006, 3:15 PM
Post #5 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Gotta say, depends on where you are. In the Southern U.S. and in the Northwest I can assure you climbing has a significant impact on cliff face and cliff top biota. I've seen numerous cliffs completely denuded adn witnessed the deaths of entire cliff tops of ancient cedars and other trees. At Cathedral in NH for instance, back in the mid 80's they were using snow shovels at one point to clear wide route swaths through the moss band on the tops of the cliffs. Again, it's a narrow and peculiar conclusion at best regardless of your methodology.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Mar 3, 2006, 3:15 PM
Post #6 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
I have to agree with healyje on this one. Your conclusion seems an extraordinary one to make. Do you have a link to your paper online?
|
|
|
|
|
jackflash
Mar 3, 2006, 3:21 PM
Post #7 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 483
|
That's really interesting. I've read Larson's paper on climbing's effects on white cedars and was a little worried that the research could be used against climbers even though it didn't examine the possiblity that you mention.
Your paper isn't available to me yet, but I look forward to reading it. Your abstract mentions you examined sport climbs. I wonder if your conclusions would be the same for trad routes. Any plans to repeat the study?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Mar 3, 2006, 4:06 PM
Post #10 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
There isn't an online link to my paper unless you have access to the online version of the journal Conservation Biolgy - perhaps through an academic library.
I do have a .pdf of it. If you want, email me:
kathrynkuntz@hotmail.com
and I'll attach it.
However, I'm off to Vegas this afternoon to do some climbing at Red Rocks this weekend, so I won't be able to reply to these requests until Tuesday at the earliest.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Mar 3, 2006, 4:16 PM
Post #11 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
As to the specific claim of 'no impact of climbing'....
The motivation behind my research was to critically examine past research projects which took pristine cliffs and climbed cliffs and looked at differences in vegetation between them. When less vegetation was found on climbed cliffs, they attributed that to climbing disturbance. (very simplified version, obviously)
I had some problems with that conclusion, so I examined a variety of factors that may influence vegetation communities on cliffs to see whether climbing disturbance was the major factor influencing the cliff face vegetation communities, or whether other factors could be accounting for the differences.
What I found was that climbing disturbance was the least significant determinant of cliff face vegetation density, diversity, and community composition. Other factors such as numbers and sizes of ledges, amount of soil, aspect, slope, cliff height, etc. were far more important than the presence of a climbing disturbance.
Climbers were selecting areas of the cliffs that were more open and exposed, had more extreme slopes and had fewer ledges and crevices. This was what was resulting in the declining vegetation cover and species diversity.
The reason for the lack of vegetation on climbed cliffs in prior studies of 'impacts of climbing' might also not be resulting from climbing disturbance. I'm not stating that we have no impact. I am stating that there are no significant differences in cliff face vegetation communities resulting from climbing disturbance.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 3, 2006, 4:27 PM
Post #12 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
In reply to: I am stating that there are no significant differences in cliff face vegetation communities resulting from climbing disturbance.
I understand that, but then you've obviously never studied crags where the face and top biota have been fairly decimated by climbers over years of use. Again, in over three decades of climbing I've seen extensive cleaning and top die-offs and I suspect many of the older climbers here have as well. My problem is you are making a broad sweeping generalization that claims on the surface of it to apply to climbing areas everywhere. My take is you have an isolated and non-representative data set hardly supporting any such conclusion.
It's would be like going to Little Big Horn and concluding fighting doesn't affect battlefield biota when you never looked at the effects of WWI trench warfare or B-52 / Agent Orange strikes in Vietnamese jungles. If you study the effects of climbing on cliffs with no substantial flora to begin with I would imagine you come to that conclusion but many crags don't fit that definition.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Mar 3, 2006, 4:38 PM
Post #13 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
"I am stating that there are no significant differences in cliff face vegetation communities resulting from climbing disturbance."
Okay, I'll revise that... I am stating that on sport-climbed cliff faces of the Niagara Escarpment, no significant differences in cliff face vegetation communities resulted from climbing disturbance.
I am not generalizing that this is the case worldwide. However prior research done in Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Switzerland and Germany should look at microsite differences between cliffs and re-evaluate whether the differences they found in cliff face vegetation between pristine and climbed cliffs was resulting from climbing or just underlying physical differences that weren't measured.
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Mar 11, 2006, 7:05 PM
Post #14 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
Climbers make me shake my head and chuckle...
On one hand, when someone accuses us of being the problem, we get all upset and call bullshit. Then when someone says we are in fact not the problem, and that the cliffs we are accused of destroying would in fact likely be in a very similar state without the influence of climbing we get all uppity and call bullshit on the research!
Make up you minds people!
For the record, I have read the research paper in its published form and it makes no claim that the cliffs sampled for the study are from a world wide or even international grouping. It is specific to cliffs in Ontario, and addresses concerns raised by other Ontario researchers studying cliff ecology stuff in Ontario.
If you have gone into a cliff in the past with a weed-whacker or scrubbed vegetation from rocks then obviously your cliff doesn't fit the profile of cliffs studied and you can take as much of the blame for cliff destruction as you like.
cam out.
|
|
|
|
|
dutyje
Mar 11, 2006, 8:44 PM
Post #15 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 727
|
I appreciate the work and research you've done here, but I think one particular statement in the provided abstract may invalidate the somewhat broad conclusions you've drawn.
In reply to: We solved these problems by sampling climbing areas used by advanced "sport" climbers and quantifying differences in microtopography between climbed and control cliffs.
Advanced "sport" climbers tend to select vertical-to-overhanging cliff faces. These are notoriously void of vegetation in their native, undisturbed state. I would expect that a survey of simply this type of cliff would support your conclusions.
But if you climb on the same less-than-vertical, slabby choss piles that low-lifes like me tend to flail around on, I think you'll find there is a very real impact to the vegetation.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Mar 13, 2006, 5:23 PM
Post #16 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
My only conclusion in my abstract is that prior management recommendations (i.e. Ban all new routing on the Niagara Escarpment in Ontario) should be re-evaluated.
New routes in Ontario are primarily sport climbs >5.10 in difficulty, that's why I chose to focus on these routes. Though it may seem obvious to climbers that difficult sport routes tend to naturally be devoid of vegetation, until this point we had no research to back up this claim. Now we can argue our cause to lift moratoriums on new routing with science backing us up. Based on my research establishing more of these routes would result in no significant disturbance. Hence, my management recommendation would be to allow new routes >5.10 in difficulty.
I hope this clears up any confusion...
|
|
|
|
|
drrock
Mar 13, 2006, 6:03 PM
Post #17 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 610
|
Thank you for taking the time and what must have been incredible energy to do this study and see it through to publication. Whether or not it is generalizable, it is still interesting research and a needed study. "I've seen a lot of destruction in my 30 years as a climber", while it may be true, is not as scientifically sound in my mind as a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. So, again, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
tweek
Mar 13, 2006, 6:25 PM
Post #18 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 171
|
For those with access:
It is published online early in conservation biology. Link:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00367.x
Most will not be able to access it this way and will need to email the author as indicated in her post.
I have no affiliation with any of this, I just spent more time than I wanted looking for this article and wanted to save others that same time.
|
|
|
|
|
corniaud
May 10, 2006, 5:20 PM
Post #19 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2004
Posts: 29
|
Congratulations Kathryn for your good work! :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 10, 2006, 5:39 PM
Post #20 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Thanks for posting and responding. Very interesting and thoughtful approach.
I think its a given that if a popular route has vegetation on it, it will eventually be denuded. But yes, it seems clear we should take into account the starting biodiversity of a given cliff face when forecasting impact determinations.
P9 of a route I jugged behind Brutus offered an interesting conundrum...
a hand and finger sized vertical crack, filled with dirt, plants, bushes and small trees, for an entire rope length, or...
a 9-11 inch overhanging off width up the side of a Sword of Damocles style inferted flake hanging directly above the hapless belayer's head (me).
Any guesses as to which option the feller took? You had to see that OW, dirty nasty mean motherfucker! But the prospect of trenching 150 feet of crack was unpalatable for a variety of reasons.
WWBD?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 10, 2006, 5:51 PM
Post #21 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
ecocliffchic, congratulations on completing your project! You should be proud of such a Herculean effort.
I'm curious, did you devote attention to climber impact along the base and at the top of cliffs? I ask, because I have long felt that these areas are where we climbers do the bulk of our damage, and not on the actual cliff faces themselves. Bolts, IMO, while more permanent, are more an eyesore than an actual environmental damage. New trails and soil impaction that often accompany a newly developed area are bigger concerns to me.
I, myself, participate occasionally in new area development and I'm interested in finding ways to lessen that impact... trail engineering, top anchors, blah, blah...
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Jun 15, 2006, 12:55 AM
Post #22 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
In reply to: ecocliffchic, congratulations on completing your project! You should be proud of such a Herculean effort.
I will second that.
Ecocliffchick you get a trophy for this study and for sharing it with us.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
rhythm164
Jun 15, 2006, 1:22 PM
Post #23 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 28, 2005
Posts: 964
|
Congratulations on completing your project. I enjoyed reviewing your findings, as well as the ensuing thread. I did have a couple questions:
1. Did you take into account possible vegetative variances due to elevation differences (if there were any) in the cliffs you studied?
2. What about directional orientation and exposure to sunlight?
3. Was the average rainfall similar on each of the cliffs in the study?
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jun 15, 2006, 1:48 PM
Post #24 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
In reply to: I'm curious, did you devote attention to climber impact along the base and at the top of cliffs? I'm interested in finding ways to lessen that impact... trail engineering, top anchors, blah, blah...
I didn't study impacts on the plateau or in the talus. A previous study did examine these (McMillan and Larson, 2002?) and found more severe trampling above and below the climbs than in pristine areas and greater proportions of exotic invasive species.
Installing bolted anchors and instituting a top-rope ban would prevent cliff top trampling. Creating paths of least resistance that only cut into the cliffs to access the climbing (and prevent the braided trail systems) would aid in protecting talus vegetation. The impact of interpretive signage is mixed. Sometimes people get more angry being told to 'stay on the existing trails' - but often if you provide an explanation of the interesting vegetation that you are trying to protect you'll receive greater compliance.
Typically trails aren't created when routes are developed, but instead grow haphazardly simply by foot traffic. Designing the trail system before hand may decrease the likelihood of having multiple trails and decrease the extent of trampling in the talus.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Jun 15, 2006, 1:52 PM
Post #25 of 28
(8078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
In reply to: 1. Did you take into account possible vegetative variances due to elevation differences (if there were any) in the cliffs you studied? 2. What about directional orientation and exposure to sunlight? 3. Was the average rainfall similar on each of the cliffs in the study?
1. No elevation differences - a single band of cliffs - but I did take into North-South Latitudinal differences
2. Aspect (relative northness and relative eastness) was measured. Canopy cover above and out from the cliff were scored and combined for a measure of shading/sheltering.
3. All sites were within 400km of one another (slight variation in rainfall from most southern cliffs vs. most northern cliffs) - but there were climbed and control cliffs in each of the three 'regions' where sampling took place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
