Shunda to Columbia Icefields, Alberta Rockies in July

[Hristo]

Superb vistas Cohan, thanks for the journey through the mountains.

[Lori S.]

...usually controlled burns are done to a)prevent buildup of excessive dead wood etc in the forest, which creates excessive amounts of fuel in the event of an accidental fire b)to rejuvenate the forest, by eliminating that build-up, clearing and fertilising the forest floor, and activating any fire cued species..

you can see that the fire has moved through these areas very quickly, scorching some trees which are now red/dead, but others remain green, and some patches are blackened, creating an interesting patchwork on the slopes...

More and more of the controlled burns in the national parks these days are done to try to control pine bark beetle... chances are the red-coloured pines were killed by it... it's a common sight, unfortunately, especially through southern B.C. (e.g. Coquihalla Highway) where there are vast tracts of dead red pines due to the beetle infestation.    

On some of our hikes, we even see where the parks people have taken down individual affected pines from amongst the healthy ones, and burned them in place... not down to ashes, but enough to thoroughly burn the bark (enough to kill the larvae, presumably).  

EDIT:  I'll add this here, rather than interrupt the thread again... We used to hang out a lot in the boreal forest, where there were plenty of natural and unnatural fires every season... even an uncontrolled fire doesn't burn a lot of trees to ashes, but instead through the main burn, it leaves tracts of black, dead, standing trees.  It takes time for a pine to die and turn red... disease does that, not fire, which mainly burns off the resinous parts and moves along quickly from treetop to treetop, especially if driven by wind.  (The concern with fire suppression is that enough duff builds up that it eventually burns deeper than just the surface debris, removing the humusy layer and killing roots.)   It looks like the controlled burn in the photo wasn't too effective - didn't reach the large area of diseased trees - maybe the wind shifted or rain put it out... or perhaps there is a plan to burn again some other day?

[cohan]

More and more of the controlled burns in the national parks these days are done to try to control pine bark beetle... chances are the red-coloured pines were killed by it... it's a common sight, unfortunately, especially through southern B.C. (e.g. Coquihalla Highway) where there are vast tracts of dead red pines due to the beetle infestation.    
On some of our hikes, we even see where the parks people have taken down individual affected pines from amongst the healthy ones, and burned them in place... not down to ashes, but enough to thoroughly burn the bark (enough to kill the larvae, presumably).   

i thought of that too, as i have heard of the burning of individual trees, it didnt lok right to me for this spot since it seemed like such a fast burn, but it may well be if you say they dont burn them thoroughly... the interesting thing about the red trees in this area is that they are only there as of this spring,  when we went through last fall it wasnt like that, at least not so much that i noticed--maybe i should dig out the old photos and look, maybe i just didnt pay attention to a few red trees without the burned areas..

i was watching a story on the news the other night about experiments with 'assisted migration' of tree species from warmer areas in to british columbia to potentially address forest loss due to climate change (the pine beetles lori mentioned are spreading much farther faster due to warmer winters)....

[cohan]

thaniks luc and chris!
chris--looks like you were risking life and limb for a shot?

luc--i also fully understand not having time to go far afield when travelling through these vast areas..
our day trips can be well over 500km, and we try to be back before dark for better driving conditions, so its quick and intense!
most of our stops are also not far from the highway, but if you are lucky to find some spots with no facilities for camping or picnicking, you can be right beside the highway, and nearly in the wildnerness..and of course, all you have to do to see pure wild places is look up!
usually my longest/farthest offroad walk is in the kootenay plains, and as soon as i leave the path to the falls, i see no one; and when we have gone in late fall or in the winter, there is no one even on the main path...

that dryas is fully open, the yellow flower doesnt open much; pics to come of D octopetala which has a classic rose form; i love that little aster too--we have tons of asters here, starting now and going to frost, but the almost flat growth is great...
the david thompson highway in general is not very busy compared to the banff/jasper corridor...

[Paul T]

Cohan,

Thanks for the pics of the Dryas.  Seeing the widespread mats of it like that, I can understand why it is banned from entry into Australia.  I can only imagine how well it would grow here in places.    Beautiful thing though, and it's relative the D. octopetala (which is not banned, obviously not being as enthusiastic in it's growth).  Wonderful scenery and pics, as always Cohan.  Thanks again.

[cohan]

Cohan,

Thanks for the pics of the Dryas.  Seeing the widespread mats of it like that, I can understand why it is banned from entry into Australia.  I can only imagine how well it would grow here in places.    Beautiful thing though, and it's relative the D. octopetala (which is not banned, obviously not being as enthusiastic in it's growth).  Wonderful scenery and pics, as always Cohan.  Thanks again.

glad you enjoyed, paul..i have no idea how that plant would do in lower/warmer places--here i have seen it follow rivers down into the lower foothills, not too far west of here; in this area its unlikely it could grow without assistance--that is, someone to weed out things which would grow taller faster and shade it out; i'm not positive that is its limitor, but it doesnt come down here, in any case...
farther south, where forest/woody shading would be less of an issue, it may be too dry? so in any event, it spreads very well in its habitat, and stays there!


lori--they have been working on that burning both times we passed this year (may and july) though in may there was more evidence of activity; it could be they were farther from the road in july; we didnt actually see fire either time, but in may there was quite a lot of smoke visible...

i wonder if they post information about these burns online somewhere? (this was within banff n.p. but before the crossing) i havent had a chance to look for it; the signs just said something like "warning controlled burning in progress"..i suppose its a tricky thing to get just enough burn without it getting out of control..
i know burned to the ground trees aren't the norm, but i have seen large areas of black standing trees or partial trunks..
the buildup of debris (dead lying trees etc) was considered a  factor in the severity of the fires around kelowna a few years back

[cohan]

after the big climb on the highway, the road continues to edge upward, and it travels on not too far from the treeline, with the snow creeping nearer to the road...
this is the kind of area i was thinking of in an earlier thread, when i wondered why there are no stopping spots, picnic areas, hiking trails in this zone where you would very quickly be above the treeline..

we were continuing on to the Columbian Icefield, where of course there are facilities and trails, and tons of tourists, all eager to see some dirty snow

[cohan]

site 6
Columbia Icefield, Alberta
this is a very popular spot, here's what the parks canada site has to say, at this site:
http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/jasper/visit/visit32_E.asp
The Columbia Icefield is a surviving remnant of the thick ice mass that once mantled most of Western Canada's mountains. Lying on a wide, elevated plateau, it is the largest icefield in the Canadian Rockies. Nearly three-quarters of the park's highest peaks are located close to the icefield; ideally placed to catch much of the moisture that Pacific winds carry across the British Columbia interior. Most of this precipitation falls as snow; up to 7 metres a year!

Since more snow falls in a year than can melt during the short summer season, it accumulates. As time passes, the snow transforms into ice and begins to flow outward through gaps in the mountains surrounding the icefield, creating great tongues of ice called glaciers.

The Athabasca is the most-visited glacier on the North American continent. Situated across from the Icefield Centre, its ice is in continuous motion, creeping forward at the rate of several centimeters per day. Spilling from the Columbia Icefield over three giant bedrock steps, the glacier flows down the valley like a frozen, slow-moving river. Because of a warming climate, the Athabasca Glacier has been receding or melting for the last 125 years. Losing half its volume and retreating more than 1.5 kms, the shrinking glacier has left a moonscape of rocky moraines in its wake.

Caution - The glacier is dangerous! People have been killed falling into deep, hidden cracks called crevasses in the glacier. For your safety do not cross the barriers.

the glacier itself probably looks best when there is a coating of fresh snow, this visit it was just dirty ice and snow--no big thrill if you are used to canadian winters of course the setting is grand..
there is a lodge which is part hotel and part convention centre, across the highway where the initial facilities were established near the foot of the glacier, which has since retreated across the valley leaving a lot of bare gravel and rock in its wake which is slowly being colonised by plants (sorry, a very quick search didnt give me the dates, but i think there has been a lodge there for over 100years, and they have markers to show the progress of the glacier)...producing a rather alpine landscape, though the area is not above the treeline; growth must be slow at this altitude with cold temperatures possible even in summer..
pic 1shows the view from the highway, showing part of the road that snakes its way to parking areas and staging for glacier tours
pic 2,3  part of the trail (look to far left in 2) from the parking area up to the actual glacier; we did walk up, but i spent more time off to the side looking at plants..
pic 4 shows a modest effort to humanise the landscape...these little inukshuks are no more than a foot tall

edit: actually, pics 5-10 are at site 6b, farther back from the glacier..

pic 5 willows
pic 6 colonising vegetation including Hedysarum
pic 7 a partial view of the glacier
pics 8-10 at this point we have backtracked to another parking area nearer the highway, and presumably some decades farther from the ice, there were more plants in this zone, only some hundreds of metres farther back... last shot shows a low area between high deposits of gravel etc(sorry,my glacier terminology is failing me at the moment, knew all this years ago, haven't thought about it lately...lol)..i'm not sure if the plants grow first in the bottoms for shelter, as they later creep up, or if its just where seeds collect first!

[cohan]

site 6
driving along the high river valleys on the way up, i had been seeing patches of bright pink which i assumed were epilobium, so i was happy to see it up here --oh jeepers, looking it up, i see its not epilobium anymore?
pics 1-5 Chamerion latifolium
mountain fireweed, mostly around 30cm tall, i'd estimate, at this altitude; around melt pools --there's a small lake or large pond at this time of year, and rivulets of melt water... i dont image drought is a big issue in this area--not warm enough for long to dry things up, and snow possible almost any time..
 oops! gotta rush for work! more later...

edit: pic 6 a view away from the glacier, laterally; you can't tell in the pic, but i think the foreground was a  pool of meltwater, and there was more water at the end of this little plain

[cohan]

site 6
the first plant i noticed in this mostly barren landscape, besides the epilobium, was
pics 1-6 Saxifraga aizoides
initially, i saw a tiny little thing no more than a few cm across with a few tiny flowers, later i saw larger plants, again, i think these are in fairly moist spots..; the species is named for resemblance to succulent Aizoaceae, but i think  'sedoides' would be much more accurate; maybe that name is already taken?
i have a snippet of this growing and flowering now from a collection early in the year at a much lower elevation, that one was growing with primula and dodecatheon in a marshy, gravelly place....
pic 2 show it with another coloniser, Dryas drummondii, which was not actually common at this site, so near the glacier, but the next spot, farther back it was more common...

[cohan]

site 6 b
this is still at the Columbia Icefield, but just a bit farther back, which could mean decades longer out of the ice, so it is much farther along in being populated by plants...
pic 1 Hedysarum sp
was common here, as at many other places; not sure if this is H boreale still, or a different species at these altitudes; the flower stems tended to be pendant, rather than upright as in lower altitude plants..
more exciting, though out of bloom was this pea
pic 2 Fabaceae sp
which was very close to the ground, though not small, with great foliage, and already in seed, so it must have flowered almost/right out of the snow, with pendant flower stems...
pics 3-7 Draba sp?
my reference isn't up to brassicaceae..lol  a couple different looking plants, perhaps, but could well be the thing is less/more exposed spots; some of them were growing from the shelter of larger plants, such as Fabaceae

[Paul T]

Some wonderful plants as always, Cohan.  The pea sp that flowered straight out of the snow is interesting.  Well into seed when everything else isn't.  Fascinating.

[cohan]

Some wonderful plants as always, Cohan.  The pea sp that flowered straight out of the snow is interesting.  Well into seed when everything else isn't.  Fascinating.

thanks, paul, yes, very interesting...
i suspect the drabas were also flowering very early--but of course, that's what they are known for!--they had longish flowering stems (for their small size) with flowers at the tips, and seed pods nearer the base...

last set for 6b
some wonderful willows--this is below the treeline, so there were some willows that might get a bit taller over time, but also a species of two of alpine willows, along with shrubby cinquefoils and avens--both D drummondii and D octopetala;
pic 1 the plants are working their way into exposed places, thought the densest growth is low between the rises pic 2
pic 3 not sure if this Potentilla/Dasiphora would grow this low if moved to lower altitudes
pic 4 Salix sp reticulata?
hard to imagine a plant i like more than this!
pic 5,6 Salix sp
lowgrowing S vestita?

[Paul T]

I love the leaves on the Salix.

[cohan]

I love the leaves on the Salix.

so do i--both species, but the (presumed) reticulata, so flat to the ground, is extra charming.. i'd love to have a nice big patch of that...lol