Canadian national parks are “changing face” due to climate changes which are disrupting the fauna and flora of these immense green spaces, leading in particular to the increase in forest fires and invasive species. Experts are, however, divided on the human interventions necessary — or not — to limit the repercussions of the ongoing upheavals in these emblematic sites.
From the impressive glaciers and snow-capped mountains of Kluane National Park, in the Yukon, to the cliffs of Forillon National Park, in Gaspésie, and the breathtaking hikes offered by Banff, in Alberta, the country’s national parks are visited each year by tens of millions of local visitors and tourists from all over the world.
These idyllic landscapes, seemingly peaceful, are however facing significant transformations in the context of climate change. The Athabasca Glacier, in Jasper National Park, “is now retreating about 5 meters per year and could have completely disappeared by 2100”, while the beach in Forillon Park is threatened by rising water levels, indicates Parks Canada on its website. The forest fire season — already well underway this year in Western Canada — is burning increasingly large areas of the country, while exotic insects and invasive plants threaten the maintenance of forest cover, the lung green national parks. Added to this is the overabundance of certain herbivores, such as beaver and deer, which also disrupts a natural ecosystem already weakened by more frequent floods and droughts.
Thus, national parks are “changing their face,” notes Sylvain Delagrange, professor of functional ecology and plant ecophysiology at the University of Quebec in Outaouais (UQO), in an interview.
“Many of us will feel that climate change will have changed the identity of our national parks,” also notes Kai Chan, professor at the Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainable Development of the University of British Columbia. “And it’s normal for people to be alarmed by that. »
Helping parks adapt
In this context, Christian Messier, professor of forest management and biodiversity at UQO, wonders “if we should not intervene in our national parks, in our protected areas, to increase the resilience of these forests”. In an interview, he indicates that the climate and the migrations of many animal species from south to north occur at a much higher rate than that of the adaptation of the existing forest in our national parks to these changes. He thus fears “a significant decline in biodiversity” in our national parks.
“The tree species in our forests are poorly adapted to these new climatic conditions and can be affected by insects or diseases,” continues Mr. Messier, who advocates for the planting in our national parks of tree species from sectors “further south”, where the vegetation is more resistant to this deregulation of our climate. The sugar maple from Minnesota, more adapted to droughts, could for example be introduced to Quebec, he explains.
“We are facing unusual stresses and we are afraid that our ecosystems will not always be able to resist or adapt to these new conditions,” notes the expert. “So, is it still wise, today in 2024, to say that just having protected areas and not intervening will protect our parks in the short term? » asks Mr. Messier.
“I have the impression that we have an obligation to intervene,” replies Kai Chan, according to whom “there are many cases where assisted migration [d’espèces d’arbres] makes a lot of sense” in order to help the ecosystems of our national parks “adapt to climate change”.
” It’s not a good idea “
This position in favor of human intervention in our forests is not, however, unanimous, quite the contrary. “It’s not a good idea,” says Professor Sylvain Delagrange bluntly. “There are certain interventions that could be interesting if they are very thoughtful and localized, but, in the vast majority of cases, I do not see good reasons to intervene in these territories,” he adds, in reference to national parks and protected areas. Indeed, by intervening in these green spaces, we take the risk of harming the adaptation of our forests to the effects of climate change, he notes.
We are facing extraordinary stresses and we are afraid that our ecosystems will not always be able to resist or adapt to these new conditions.
“There is nothing to say that nature will do less well than what we do,” the professor points out. It also notes the risk that human interventions in national parks to plant tree species from another source will, for example, accelerate the introduction of insects or “diseases” contributing to the decline of forest cover. “If we intervene everywhere with one intervention method and we realize that it is the wrong one, I find that it is a danger”, underlines the one who prefers to be “optimistic” about the capacity of our forests to adapt to climate change.
“Nature will install things that will be durable and that will work,” he thinks. “For me, it’s a bit of an opportunity to see how nature will adapt to this, what will settle there, what it will become,” adds the expert.
Shelters
Sylvain Delagrange, however, is not opposed to the restoration measures that Parks Canada and the Société des establishments de plein air du Québec (SEPAQ) sometimes take. For example, several hundred chorus frogs have been released in recent years in ponds custom-designed to meet their needs in the Mont-Saint-Bruno national park, where this endangered species does not exist. had been more present for years. SEPAQ also planted a few thousand trees in the Plaisance national park, in Outaouais, after the common buckthorn, a plant associated with the mortality of ash trees, wreaked havoc there.
Kai Chan also believes that climate change has shown the crucial role that national parks play as “refuges” for the numerous animal and plant species that migrate to other territories in order to adapt to these upheavals. The expert thus pleads for the creation of a greater number of protected areas in the country to help biodiversity adapt to the climate crisis. “For some species, these are the last refuges they have left. »