UTILIZING INDIGENOUS PRESCRIBED BURNING METHODS TO RECLAIM A
TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITY IN THE SOUTHERN INTERIOR OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA
by
BRANDON JOHN WILLIAMS
B.Sc., Macewan University, 2019

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in the Department of Natural Resource Sciences

Thesis examining committee:
Dr. Lauchlan Fraser (Ph.D), Thesis Supervisor, Department of Biological Sciences and
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. Wendy Gardner (Ph.D), Supervisory Committee Member, Department of Natural Resource
Sciences, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. Courtney Mason (Ph.D), Supervisory Committee Member, Department of Natural Resource
Sciences and Tourism Management, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. Anayansi Cohen-Fernández (Ph.D), External Examiner, Department of Renewable
Resources, British Columbia Institute of Technology

© Brandon John Williams, 2022

ii
Thesis Supervisor: Professor Dr. Lauchlan Fraser

Abstract
Mine reclamation and closure plans have historically focused on returning disturbed
lands to a vegetative community, often without consideration of the pre-existing natural
vegetation. The resulting plant communities are often dominated by non-desirable, long-lived,
sod-forming wheat grasses often utilized for agronomic purposes due to their heartiness and
ability to grow anywhere. Once established, these plant communities often dominate, restricting
native species, and enter a state with little successional advancement. As mining regulatory
standards and local community engagement between stakeholders have increased, the closure
objective of mines have also changed. Community-engaged closure, which places more value on
ecosystem function and native biodiversity, are now often the standard in Canada. Highland
Valley Copper Mine has committed to working with Indigenous communities, specifically the
Nlaka’pamux peoples to improve their cultural awareness and inclusion with the objective of
creating sustainable benefits for Indigenous communities while also securing social license with
the community to maintain business operations. Prescribed burning was traditionally used by the
Nlaka’pamux people to manage their landscapes and there was interest to reintegrate fire as a
management technique. A unique industry / Indigenous relationship formed to collaborate on the
use of fire to reintroduce native species on a formerly reclaimed tailings storage facility. As
large-scale disturbances, notably fire, have historically structured grasslands both naturally and
through Indigenous cultural use, and can alter successional trajectory, I tested the effects of
prescribed burning in a 24-year-old mine-reclaimed, non-desirable, grass dominated, closed
tailings storage facility. Prescribed burning was applied as a means of shifting the existing plant
community towards a native grassland. The objectives of this thesis were to: 1) investigate if
prescribed burning can successfully act as a disturbance to transition a non-desirable, lowdiversity, agronomic vegetative community to a native grassland; 2) examine the role fire
intensity plays in the vegetative community when trying to establish native species under
controlled conditions and; 3) investigate the level of involvement that the Nlaka’pamux peoples
played in the prescribed fire project and examine the practices that industry professionals
employed to connect with this community. Fire severity was modified within the greenhouse trial
at three levels (high, moderate, low) and held constant (low) in the field. Fire severity

iii
adjustments were made via modifying the fuel load and time of burning per treatment. Plant
community composition shifted significantly within the greenhouse because of the burning
treatment. Greater effects were found in the greenhouse trial, likely due to better control of the
burn, such that native species colonization was observed. These results indicate that prescribed
burning can play a significant role in structuring ecosystems and allowing the re-establishment of
native plant species. My results also suggest that the level of Indigenous involvement represents
a relationship formed out of necessity that was demonstrated by the role that the Nlaka’pamux
fulfilled throughout the implementation of the project. The findings of this study provide
important considerations for both mine reclamation practices and industry / Indigenous
relationships.

Keywords: Mine Reclamation, grassland restoration, prescribed fire, traditional ecological
knowledge, semiarid grasslands, native species, Indigenous engagement

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. viii
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. x
List of Tables............................................................................................................................. xv
Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................................... xvii
Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
HISTORY AND EXTENT OF MINING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.) ............................ 2
GIS CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................... 4
A BRIEF HISTORY OF COLONIALISM AND LAND MANAGEMENT IN B.C. ............... 6
CHALLENGES IN RECLAIMAING MINED ECOSYSTEMS ............................................... 9
PRESCRIBED FIRE TO FACCILITATE ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY IN GRASSLANDS 14
HISTORY OF INDIGENOUS USE OF FIRE & CHANGING LANDSCAPES .................... 15
THESIS RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 18
Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 2 : EXAMINING INDIGENOUS INVOLVEMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED
BURNING TRIALS CONDUCTED AT HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER MINE ................... 28
IINTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 28
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RESEARCH METHODS ...................... 31
CREATING A RELATIONSHIP OUT OF NECESSITY ....................................................... 34
PRESCRIBED FIRE PROJECT PARTNERSHIP CONSTRAINTS AND LMITATIONS ... 37
OPPROTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ENGAGEMENT AND RECCOMENDATIONS ........... 40

v
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 40
Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 3 : UTILIZING PRESCRIBED BURNING AS A TOOL TO ENHANCE NATIVE
GRASSLAND RECOVERY ON A TWENTY-FIVE-YEAR-OLD RECLAIMED MINETAILINGS FACILITY DOMINATED BY NON-DESIREABLE VEGETATION ................... 44
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 44
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 45
METHODS................................................................................................................................ 48
Study Site............................................................................................................................... 48
Experimental Design ............................................................................................................. 50
Amendments .......................................................................................................................... 51
Fire Treatment ....................................................................................................................... 52
Vegetation Assessment & Harvesting ................................................................................... 54
Soil Sampling, Elemental Analysis & pH ............................................................................. 55
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 55
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................. 57
Species Richness, Evenness and Diversity ............................................................................ 57
Plant Community Analysis .................................................................................................... 59
Random Forest ....................................................................................................................... 62
Litter & Diversity Relationship ............................................................................................. 64
Disturbance, Productivity and Litter ..................................................................................... 65
Soil Elemental Analysis & pH Response to Burning ............................................................ 70
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 73
Impacts of Disturbance and Amendments on Diversity ........................................................ 73
Litter Dynamics in the Plant Community .............................................................................. 74
Disturbance, Productivity and Litter ..................................................................................... 74

vi
Soil Elemental Analysis & pH Response to Fire ................................................................... 75
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 76
Literature Cited: ........................................................................................................................ 77
Chapter 4 : TESTING PRESCRIBED BURNING INTENSITY IN A MESOCOSM AS A
METHOD TO SHIFT A NON-DESIREABLE GRASS COMMUNITY TO A NATIVE PLANT
COMMUNITY ............................................................................................................................. 82
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 82
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 83
METHODS................................................................................................................................ 86
Term Clarification ................................................................................................................. 86
Mesocosm Unit Extraction Site ............................................................................................. 87
Experimental Design ............................................................................................................. 89
Seed Selection, Preparation & Seeding Rate ......................................................................... 90
Mesocosms ............................................................................................................................ 91
Fire Treatment ....................................................................................................................... 93
Vegetation Assessment & Harvesting ................................................................................... 94
Soil Sampling, Elemental Analysis & pH ............................................................................. 95
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 96
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................. 98
Disturbance and Alpha Diversity .......................................................................................... 98
Functional Group Analysis & Community Species Assemblage ........................................ 100
Aboveground Net Primary Productivity .............................................................................. 103
Fire Disturbance, ANPP & Litter Relationship ................................................................... 105
Disturbance, Diversity & Litter Relationship ...................................................................... 106
Plant Community Analysis .................................................................................................. 107
Soil Elemental Analysis....................................................................................................... 109

vii
pH ........................................................................................................................................ 112
DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 114
Impacts of Disturbance on Diversity and the Plant Community ......................................... 114
Total Cover and Plant Functional Group Response to Disturbance .................................... 116
Impacts of Disturbance on Aboveground Net Primary Productivity .................................. 117
Litter Dynamics in the Plant Community ............................................................................ 118
Soil Elemental Analysis & pH Response to Fire ................................................................. 119
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 120
Literature Cited: ...................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter 5 : Research Implications, Conclusions & Appendices ................................................ 127
Literature Cited: ...................................................................................................................... 129

viii

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Lauchlan Fraser, and my supervisory committee; Dr.
Wendy Gardner and Dr. Courtney Mason for providing me with all the academic support needed
for me to complete this thesis. Beyond the academic support I would like to personally thank my
committee for their patience with me as I recovered from a long hospital stay that placed my
studies on pause. I would also like to thank the many staff at TRU that supported me in teaching
positions for ecology, biology, and natural resource sciences.
Secondly, I would like to thank the generous contributions from the Contaminated Sites
Approved Professionals (CSAP) Society, Geoscience British Columbia, the Technical Research
and Committee on Reclamation (TRCR), Dr. Sherman Jen, Ken Lepin, British Columbia
Environment Industry Association (BCEIA), the Canadian Land Reclamation Association and
the Graduate Studies Department at Thompson Rivers University for supporting my scholarship.
These contributions allowed me to disseminate my research to audiences outside of academia,
expand my name as a biologist, and live comfortably as a student during my studies.
I would also like to thank everyone at the Fraser Lab for their support in and out of the lab. The
love I received from my peers during my time in the lab motivated me to get better and push
through my studies.

ix

Dedication
I have a lot of people who supported me through my thesis in one way or another and I dedicate
my work to the people who uplifted me through all of it. First, I would like to dedicate this work
to someone who entering this lab changed my life forever. Without your comradery, intense
ecological debates, and endless support I would not be where I am today. I would also like to
dedicate this thesis to the doctors and nurses on the intensive care and rehab unit at the
Kamloops, Royal Inland Hospital as their efforts truly saved my life. Finally, I would not be
where I am today without the support of my two loving parents who have pushed me to
continually challenge myself and always strive for better.

x

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. A) Extent of currently operating major mines, B) Historical mines in a state classified
as: abandoned, closed, or in need or reclamation or restoration, C) First Nations communities, D)
All maps overlaid. Highlighting Highland Valley Copper Mine. Map was created by Brandon
Williams using QGIS version 3.18.0 using open-source data collected from BC Data Catalogue
(Major Mines, MINFILE Inventory &First Nations Communities spatial data). ........................... 5
Figure 1.2. Newspaper article printed in San Francisco on rumors of the gold rush highlighting
the Frazer River thermometer and the great gold discoveries of 1858 (Sterrett & Butler, 1858) .. 8
Figure 1.3. Overview image of a closed dry stacked tailings facility (Highmont Tailings) located
at Highland Valley Copper Mine. ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 1.4 Twenty-five-year-old reclaimed vegetative cover crop landscape represented by a
monoculture mosaic of non-desirable, agronomic grass species located at Highmont Tailings,
Highland Valley Copper Mine. ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.1 Nlaka'pamux traditional territory within B.C. amended with approximate location of
Highland Valley Copper Mine (HVC) (Cold Water Indian Band, 2021) ..................................... 30
Figure 3.1. Field study site located at Highmont Tailings, within Highland Valley Copper Mine,
British Columbia, Canada. ............................................................................................................ 49
Figure 3.2. A) Aerial photo of the Historic Highmont Tailings dry stack storage at Highland
Valley Copper, April 2019. B) Current vegetative cover during peak growing season at
Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, August 2019. ...................................................................... 50
Figure 3.3. Overview of experimental design located at the Historic Highmont Tailings facility at
Highland Valley Copper. .............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 3.4. A) Plant community present at Highland Valley Copper, Highmont Tailings site prior
to burning. B) Post prescribed burning with a propane Tiger Torch™ (Model No. 95-B). C) Plant
community one month after burning............................................................................................. 53

xi
Figure 3.5. Omegalaq™ temperature sensitive paints applied at gradations of approximately 30
°C used to quantify fire temperature. A) Omegalaq™ paints from lowest to highest temperature.
B) Example of paint change resulting from heat exposure in a lab setting. ................................. 54
Figure 3.6. A) Species Richness, B) Shannon-Diversity, C) Simpson-Index (1-D) as an effect of
burning treatments (n control = 24, n Burn = 24, n Burn(S+P) = 24). Pairwise comparisons were
conducted within each group and were compared to the control and adjusted with BH
corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01. Non-significant values were not plotted........................ 59
Figure 3.7. Extracted Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity distance plotted by A) Burn Treatment (fifteen
months postburn) and B) Timing for field plots located on HVC, Highmont Tailings. ............... 61
Figure 3.8. Random forest generated variables of importance driving beta diversity response due
to factors: A) Timing and B) Burn Treatment for field plots located at HVC, Highmont Tailings.
....................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.9. Percent cover of litter across factors of A) Timing (n preburn = 33, n fifteen months
postburn = 95) and B) Burn Treatment (n control = 42, n Burn = 36, n Burn(S+P) = 24), and
percent cover of Achillea millefolium across factors of C) Timing and D) Burn Treatment.
Pairwise comparisons for Burn Treatment factor were compared to a base mean from ‘control’
and adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p <0.05, ‘**’ p <0.01 , ‘***’ p<0.001, ‘****’ p<0.0001. 63
Figure 3.10. Relationship between Shannon-Diversity and litter mass fifteen months postburn.
Shannon-Diversity = 0.96 – 0.005 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.12 p = 0.02. ........................... 65
Figure 3.11. A) Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) and B) Litter by burn treatment,
fifteen months postburn (n control = 12, n Burn = 12, n Burn(S+P) = 12). Pairwise comparisons
analyzed treatment against control and p-values were adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05,
‘**’ p < 0.01, ‘***’p < 0.001. Non-significant values were not plotted. ..................................... 67
Figure 3.12. Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) of A) Forbs, B) Non-desirable
grasses, and C) Native grasses by burn treatment, fifteen months postburn (n control = 12, n
Burn = 12, n Burn(S+P) = 12). All pairwise comparisons were analyzed, and p-values were

xii
adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01, ‘***’p < 0.001. Non-significant values
were not plotted............................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 3.13. Comparisons of A) Total nitrogen, B) Total Carbon, and C) carbon to nitrogen
(C:N) ratio (n preburn = 6, n fifteen months postburn = 9) for soils extracted from Highland
Valley Copper, Highmont Tailings prior to burning and fifteen months after burning was
completed. * = 0.05, ** = 0.01, *** = 0.001 ................................................................................ 71
Figure 3.14. pH of the top 15cm of soil extracted fifteen months postburn from burn treatments
(n = 9 for each group) located at Highland Valley Copper, Highmont Tailings. ......................... 72
Figure 4.1. Mesocosm unit extraction site located within Highland Valley Copper Mine,
Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, British Columbia, Canada. ................................................. 87
Figure 4.2. A) Aerial photo of the Historic Highmont Tailings dry stack storage at Highland
Valley Copper, April 2019. B) Current vegetative cover during peak growing season at
Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, August 2019. ...................................................................... 89
Figure 4.3. Extracted Mesocosm grass turf from Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, Highland
Valley Copper Mine. ..................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.4. Mesocosm units and their respective treatments; A) Control, B) Clip (2cm height), C)
High Intensity (200g litter applied, 20 s burned), D) Moderate Intensity (150g litter applied, 15 s
burned), E) Low Intensity (50g litter applied, 10 s burned). All mesocosm units were seeded at
the same time, and at the same rate after treatment was applied. ................................................. 93
Figure 4.5. Omegalaq™ temperature sensitive paints applied at gradations of approximately 30
°C used to quantify fire temperature. A) Omegalaq™ paints from lowest to highest temperature.
B) High severity burn analyzed at approximately 343 °C. C) Moderate severity burn analyzed at
approximately 343 °C. D) Low severity burn analyzed at approximately 302 °C. ...................... 94
Figure 4.6. An intact soil core extracted from a mesocosm unit. The top 10 cm and bottom 10 cm
was separated and used for soil analyses. ..................................................................................... 96

xiii
Figure 4.7. Shannon-Diversity, Simpson Index, and Species Richness as an effect of burning
treatments (n = 6 for all treatments) at seven months postburn (A-C), and analysis of interaction
effects between timing and burn treatments (D-F). All Pairwise comparisons were conducted in
A-C, and pairwise comparisons to control were conducted in D-F. p values were adjusted with
BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01, ‘***’ p < 0.001. ...................................................... 99
Figure 4.8. Percent cover of five plant functional groups across disturbance treatment and timing
for pre-disturbance and 7-months postburn in a mesocosm fire experiment (n = 6 within each
group, +/- 1 SE). Pairwise comparisons within treatment groups were completed and adjusted
with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, non-significant values were not plotted. .............................. 102
Figure 4.9. Mean percent plant cover by species across all experimental mesocosm units by
timing of pre-disturbance to project completion at seven-months post burn. (n = 30 in each
group) .......................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 4.10. Normalized aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) by timing in predisturbance and 7-month postburn across disturbance treatments from each mesocosm unit (n = 6
for each group). Pairwise comparisons were completed within treatments between predisturbance, and final post burn conditions and p-values were adjusted with BH corrections. . 104
Figure 4.11. Relationship between normalized aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP)
and litter mass for a seven-month mesocosm experiment. Pre-disturbance: ANPP Normalized =
0.58 – 0.032 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = -0.02, p = > 0.05, 7-month postburn: ANPP Normalized
= 0.76 – 0.46 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.15 , p = < 0.05. ..................................................... 106
Figure 4.12. Relationship between Shannon-Diversity and normalized litter mass for a sevenmonth mesocosm experiment (Adjusted R2 = 0.11, p = 0.007) . ............................................... 107
Figure 4.13. Extracted Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity distance plotted by A) Disturbance Treatment
(seven-month postburn) and B) Timing for field mesocosm units extracted from HVC, Highmont
Tailings. ...................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 4.14. Total nitrogen, carbon, and carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio separated by top 10cm
and bottom 10cm of soil sample extracted from each mesocosm unit (n = 6 for each group).

xiv
Pairwise comparisons were completed within treatments between pre-disturbance, and final post
burn conditions and p-values were adjusted using BH corrections. * = 0.05, ** = 0.01, *** =
0.001, **** = 0.0001. (Bot & Top 10 cm = bottom or top 10 cm of sample extracted from a 30
cm soil core pulled from each mesocosm unit). ......................................................................... 112
Figure 4.15. pH of the top 10cm of soil extracted from each mesocosm unit (n = 6 for each
group). Pairwise comparisons were completed within treatments between pre-disturbance, threemonths postburn and 7-months postburn and p-values were adjusted using BH corrections. * =
0.05, ** = 0.01, *** = 0.001, **** = 0.0001. ............................................................................. 114

xv

List of Tables
Table 2-1. Overview of semi-structured interview research participants for interviews conducted
in 2020 .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 3-1. List of native plant species included in the operational seed mix, indicating
successional status and plant functional group. ............................................................................ 52
Table 3-2. ANOVA to determine the significance of burn treatment and timing effect on
richness, Shannon-Diversity and Simpson-Index (1-D). .............................................................. 58
Table 3-3. PERMANOVA testing community structure based on the effect of burn treatment
(control, Burn, Burn (S+P)) and timing (preburn and 15-month postburn) for plots located on
Highmont Tailings, HVC. NB perms: 999 ................................................................................... 60
Table 3-4. ANOVA to determine significance of burn treatments on ANPP and Litter for field
plots located at HVC, Highmont Tailings facility. ....................................................................... 66
Table 3-5. ANOVA to determine significance of burn treatments on ANPP of Forbs, Nondesirable grass, and Native grass for field plots located at HVC, Highmont Tailings facility. .... 68
Table 3-6. ANOVA to determine the significance of burn treatment on total N, total C, and C:N
ratio. .............................................................................................................................................. 70
Table 3-7. ANOVA to determine the significance of burn treatment pH ..................................... 72
Table 4-1. Fire severity matrix related to above ground biomass consumption adapted from
Keeley (2009) and Dobb and Burton (2012). ............................................................................... 87
Table 4-2. List of plant species selected for the mesocosm experiment indicating successional
status and functional group ........................................................................................................... 91
Table 4-3. ANOVA to determine significance of disturbance treatment and timing effect on
percent cover of plant functional groups for mesocosm units. ................................................... 101

xvi
Table 4-4. ANOVA to determine significance of disturbance treatment and timing on normalized
ANPP for mesocosm units. ......................................................................................................... 104
Table 4-5. PERMANOVA testing community structure based on the effect of disturbance
treatment (clip, control, and all burn treatments lumped together) and timing (pre-disturbance,
and all postburn timings lumped together) for mesocosm turves extracted from Highmont
Tailings, Highland Valley Copper mine. .................................................................................... 108
Table 4-6. ANOVA to determine significance of disturbance treatment, timing, and level on total
nitrogen concentrations for mesocosm units............................................................................... 110
Table 4-7. ANOVA to determine significance of pH across disturbance treatment and timing
within mesocosm units................................................................................................................ 113

xvii

Glossary of Terms
ANPP – Above-ground net primary productivity
B.C. – British Columbia
BH – Benjamini Hochberg
GA3 – Gibberellic acid
HBM – Hump-backed-model
OAS - Organic analytical standards
PLS – Pure live seed
RF – Random forest
TRU – Thompson Rivers University
TSF – Tailings storage facility

Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION
Industrial scale resource extraction operations present major challenges for biodiversity
and ecosystem services. The mining industry involves significant tradeoffs between ecosystem
services (Costanza et al. 1997) and biodiversity conservation, as it converts multifunctional
natural ecosystems into mineral provisioning landscapes (Neves et al. 2016). This conversion can
be responsible for a significant temporary loss in biodiversity, largely as a result of habitat loss
and altered plant communities (Percy et al. 2005, Grigg 2014). Beyond impacts to the
environment, when the mining industry entered Canada at the beginning of the 19th century,
operations resulted in Indigenous community disruption, and dispossession of Indigenous
peoples from traditional lands (Melosi 2017). This historic reality can be attributed in part to a
colonialist mindset and lack of policy, regulation, and checks and balances in industry with
respect to restorative or reclamation practices. This lack of policy, combined with little
forethought given to the impact occurring to ecosystem services, human livelihoods and health
has caused significant long lasting impacts (Virgone et al. 2018). Due to this legacy, there
currently exists a vast heritage of degraded lands due to historical mining practices which
displaced communities and now require restoration, reclamation, and reconciliation (Bradshaw
1997).
As mining industries faced significant amounts of scrutiny with respect to land use management,
sustainability issues, and other adverse socio-environmental issues, this stimulated a response
from industry to place items like sustainability reporting, and social and environmental
assessments at the forefront of operations to prove due diligence is being met in order to secure a
social license to operate (Azapagic 2004, Melosi 2017, Virgone et al. 2018). These efforts are
applied into properly managing both impacted and natural landscapes, working within
environmental policy, and collaborating with communities on end land use goals for mine
closure. In the transition period between alternative and green technologies that can replace the
need for resource extraction, this industry is essential to provide Canadians with modern-day
comforts and economic freedom while reclamation and restoration science offer an attempt to
overcome environmental problems. Today, industry has the responsibility to address impacts
beyond that of the environment. Modern reclamation and reconciliation efforts have begun to
encapsulate building and maintaining strong, resilient, and beneficial relationships with

2
Indigenous peoples and local communities to reconcile past inequities. The gold standard
moving forward for industries should be to move beyond a social license to operate and into
dynamic, trusted, and mutual management of the landscape with communities especially when
operating on unceded Indigenous lands.
This thesis project examines a unique opportunity presented by a partnership between Teck
Highland Valley Copper (HVC) Mine, and the Nlaka’pamux peoples to implement the use of
prescribed fire as a reclamation tool to enhance ecosystem reclamation on disturbed mine lands.
This project also represents its own unique position in science as I conducted research on the
process of how the project came to be, and the effectiveness of prescribed fire to transform a
successionally stalled plant community to a highly diverse grassland state. This work presents a
new paradigm in which industry, stakeholders, and particularly Indigenous communities are
collaborating on projects.

HISTORY AND EXTENT OF MINING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (B.C.)
Historically when the mining industry entered Canada it promised job security and
economic gain to communities that participated. This unfortunately was not the case in all
circumstances. Throughout the Canadian north, mining was often attributed to toxic wastes,
warning signs of abandoned mine shafts, and dispossession of Indigenous peoples and their land
(Melosi 2017). This reality existed as the industry was in its infancy and a list of unknowns were
present with respect to future impacts.
As the use of land to yield materials for processing and creating goods and services represent
some of the most substantial changes to ecosystems, we must properly manage both our
impacted and natural landscapes to ensure a positive net balance is maintained with respect to
ecosystem function (Vitousek et al. 1997). With this goal in mind, reclamation and restoration
ecology has emerged within the last few decades to counteract the worldwide degradation of
biodiversity and ecosystem services (Hölzel et al. 2018). Environmental awareness and the full
understanding of the complex chemical processes behind managing a mined landscape was not
fully understood until recently. As such, many current reclamation and restoration efforts are

3
simply lagging behind the need to effectively restore these disturbed communities to a state of no
net loss with respect to ecosystem functioning, and often take much longer than expected to
reach ecological targets (Ruggles et al. 2021).
Land management as it pertains to mining has been existent to some extent since 1969 in B.C. as
companies have been required to reclaim all lands disturbed by mining. However, as discussed
above, reclamation tends to be costly and companies would often enter bankruptcy before
completing reclamation, leaving the abandoned landscape for B.C. taxpayers to deal with.
Currently, the obligation to reclaim all mined lands is enforced through the Mines Act, and
rigorous provincial standards to maintain the environment. Before starting work, a reclamation
program must be created, and reviewed on an ongoing basis. In addition, a reclamation security
must be paid to the province to ensure obligations are kept and money is held by the province to
ensure reclamation occurs (Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources - Mining and
Minerals Division 2008). Unfortunately, reclamation efforts and mine closure still often leave
behind a legacy of active management and treatment that will need to remain in perpetuity, until
the environmental risks (i.e.; water quality, erosion, fugitive dust) can be managed passively
(Blanchette and Lund 2016). This constant management can partially be attributed to the
challenges of defining the success of restoration or reclamation for mines, in addition to the lack
of passive treatment options available to industry.
Mine reclamation has been defined as a success both in policy and academia when healthy, selfsustaining ecosystems are developed on previously mined landscapes and deemed satisfactory by
a chief inspector under the Mines Act (Garris et al. 2016, Government of British Columbia
Ministry of Energy 2008). Given the lack of a clear set of measurable and enforceable
reclamation criteria, paired with broad and vague inspection procedures for regulators and
contractors, the formal closing of mines is both rare and costly. The province of B.C. now carries
a large legacy of liability from old mines that were developed and abandoned when regulations
were looser.

4

GIS CONSIDERATIONS
To examine the extent of mining within the province of B.C. and add context to the history of
mining and reclamation status within the province, R package “bcdata” (Teucher et al. 2019) was
used to download and extract spatial data from the open-source BC Data Catalogue. Extracted
data and spatial layers were then imported into QGIS version 3.18.0 to be analyzed. The
following data was downloaded from BC Data Catalogue:
•

Permitted Mine areas – Major Mine (Samuelson 2021)

•

MINFILE Production Database (Jones 2021a)

•

MINFILE Inventory Database (Jones 2021b)

•

First Nations Community Locations (Armstrong and Gowan 2020)

Figure 1.1 Depicts up to date and historical data downloaded from the BC Data Catalogue on
currently operating major mines, historical abandoned or closed mines in need of reclamation or
restoration, and First Nations communities. Analysis of this data included computations of the
total land area occupied by the 37 listed major mines within the permitted mine areas dataset, in
addition to total historic mines, and total ore extracted. Major mines are listed and defined by
those producing coal or mineral (Government of British Columbia Ministry of Energy 2008).
The 37 listed major mines operating within B.C. as per the BC Data Catalogue represent a
cumulative land area of 648 square kilometers, and have mined a total of 4.9 billion tonnes of
mineral or coal material (Samuelson 2021). This metric however represents an underestimated
value as the ‘Permitted Mine areas – Major Mine’ dataset is missing 35 regional mines as per the
most updated, B.C. mine information webpage (BCMine Information 2021). The author of the
‘Permitted Mine areas – Major Mine’ dataset was contacted for updated information; however,
the dataset access was denied as it was still under construction. Additionally, historic mine data
from the ‘MINFILE Inventory’ dataset represent a total of 1696 mines, dating back from as early
as 1880, with a cumulative mined total of 9 billion tonnes (Jones 2021a).
Restoration and reclamation procedures in B.C. need to be outlined in greater detail, and industry
to be held to a higher standard, to ensure a legacy of abandoned mines do not continue to burden
the province, and communities surrounding these mines.

Figure 1.1. A) Extent of currently operating major mines, B) Historical mines in a state classified as: abandoned, closed, or in need
of reclamation or restoration, C) First Nations communities, D) All maps overlaid. Highlighting Highland Valley Copper Mine.
Map was created by Brandon Williams using QGIS version 3.18.0 using open-source data collected from BC Data Catalogue
(Major Mines, MINFILE Inventory & First Nations Communities spatial data).

6

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COLONIALISM AND LAND MANAGEMENT IN
B.C.
Indigenous peoples in Canada are estimated to represent approximately 3-5% of the
total population and represent over 370 million peoples worldwide (Turner and Clifton 2009,
Kumar Dhir 2016, Statistics Canada 2017). Indigenous communities in Canada and across
the globe have suffered significant injustices and many continue to face marginalization,
exploitation, and exclusion. This is especially present in nations in the Global South where
political powers and powerful international businesses work to the disadvantage of third
world state lack of policies (Hilson 2002, Munarriz 2008, Kumar Dhir 2016).
Human activities on the land inherently result in ecosystem change. Global and local scale
human induced environmental changes have caused a general decline in diversity by
replacing normal, predictable ecosystem functioning with a novel or unpredictable set of
traits and level of function (Loreau et al. 2001). Globally, over half of the worlds land area
has been converted to human-dominated land-uses (Watson et al. 2016).
The mining industry within B.C. plays a significant role in land use and represents a
significant portion of lands that need to be restored, reclaimed, or rehabilitated (Figure 1.1).
The pursuit of mining and the developing mining industry has historically and currently
posed a significant vector for both ecosystem and cultural change. Mining has been a part of
B.C.’s economy since the mid-1800s with active coal mines on Vancouver Island and the
presence of gold in the Cariboo. The onset of the Cariboo gold rush occurred when
Indigenous miners discovered gold and shared the information with European explorers
(Bellringer 2016, Ignace and Ignace 2017, Marshall 2018). It was the discovery and quick
spread of information about the presence of gold in the Cariboo that spurred a massive
immigration of approximately 23,000 Euro-American miners seeking their fortune. Reports
and print articles of the ‘gold frenzy’ promised anywhere between $10-300 in gold to be
excavated daily.
A mass migration to the Fraser River and surrounding areas was coined the “Frazer River
`Fever” (Figure 1.2), and soon lead to conflicts between Euro-American miners and
Nlaka’pamux Indigenous landowners when mining was protested on traditional land.

7
Ultimately, it was not long before the transient, self-serving population of Euro-Americans
became abrasive to interactions with Indigenous peoples as conflict ensued due to access to
the land for mining. These conflicts began to foster the ideology that a good Indian is a dead
Indian (Marshall 2018). It is at the root of these conflicts within the ‘Frazer Canyon War’ and
gold rush that has set the precedent for Indigenous rights in the province of B.C and the
unrest that lies within the province today in regards to land use and management on unceded
territory (Marshall 2018).
Mining has since expanded to all parts of the province and B.C. is now Canada’s largest
exporter of coal and producer of copper while producing over thirty additional industrial
metals. The diversity and wealth of natural resources within B.C. poses opportunity for
economic prosperity as evidenced by being the global hub for mineral exploration to over
1200 mine related companies, but also many threats ranging from environmental to cultural
disruption (Marshall 2019). Despite the fact that extraction and production of these metals
support current living standards and have lead to societal advancements, the cost often comes
to the detriment of the environment, ecosystems, and deleterious impacts on human health,
culture, and communities (Virgone et al. 2018). To further complicate matters, significant
challenges arise as governments and communities are faced with a dilemma on how to find a
balance between the needs for resource development and biodiversity conservation, while
meeting demands for mineral commodities (Sengupta 1993, Grigg 2014).
Currently within B.C., legislation has been passed that confirms the ‘United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration)’ (Government of British
Columbia 2019). This framework towards reconciliation of Indigenous rights with the
interests of Canadian society places a duty on the crown to ‘consult and accommodate
Indigenous peoples’ for mining, mineral exploration, as well as oil and gas. This however
does not explicitly protect Indigenous rights but rather mandates the procedural duty to
consult and accommodate. A fundamental flaw however does not address or respect
Indigenous rights fully as infringement can be justified, so long as consultation was upheld
under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act (Horowitz et al. 2018).

8

Figure 1.2. Newspaper article printed in San Francisco on rumors of
the gold rush highlighting the Frazer River thermometer and the great
gold discoveries of 1858 (Sterrett & Butler 1858)

9
The implications of industrial expansions have moved beyond environmental damage
and have affected many communities and ways of living since the onset of the goldrush
within B.C. as individuals and industries began to seek rights to extraction and settled land in
traditional Indigenous territories. As a result, Indigenous communities have been placed at
risk by dispossession from their traditional lands, loss of culture, and sense of place (Palmer
2005, Fernandez and Silver 2017). As global demands for resources increase, industry
sectors like mining will need to continue to expand restoration and reclamation efforts to
support sustainable development while surpassing ecological objectives and work towards
reclaiming and restoring good faith with local and Indigenous communities to preserve
culture and protect the land. The task for the future is moving beyond the approach of simply
receiving social license to operate, and instead collaboratively build social enterprise with
common objectives.

CHALLENGES IN RECLAIMAING MINED ECOSYSTEMS
In the pursuit to reclaim ecosystems within a mine setting there are many external
factors that place limits on the reconstruction of a plant community. Restoration and
reclamation following the mining process is both complex and challenging due to various
biotic and abiotic factors (Turner et al. 2006, Gasch et al. 2014). One of the first steps in
restoration or reclamation of these lands is typically revegetation. Outside of the semi-arid
environment and climate conditions that exert the primary control of plant productivity and
composition, many characteristics of mine wastes often provide unfavorable conditions to
successful vegetation establishment, notably the levels of residual heavy metals, low nutrient
status, poor physical structure of soils, and extreme pH values (Tordoff et al. 2000, Sample
and Barlow 2013). The combination and interactive effects of unfavorable substrate, paired
with low annual precipitation can compound the challenges with restoration in higher
temperature, semi-arid mine lands, and poses a unique challenge as these landscapes are
already attributed with a lower richness and diversity of species (Osman and Barakbah 2011).
One of the major challenges to deal with when reclaiming or restoring function to disturbed
mine sites is the lack of volume and degradation of topsoil over time, and an overabundance

10
of mine wastes. Due to the nature of mining, stripping of the soil and vegetation is necessary.
Soils are then stockpiled during the life of operation for the mine, and have been found to
deteriorate in quality, ultimately becoming unfertile by the time of mine closure or use
(Ghose 2004). While topsoil is low in quantity, mine tailings waste is in large abundance.
Mine tailings present one of the most harmful and longest lasting environmental liabilities
that needs to be managed (Young et al. 2015). As such, it is a high priority for mines to
manage their tailings from entering groundwaters, rivers and lakes, and reducing wind travel.
Management techniques vary from riverine disposal, submarine disposal, wetland retention,
backfilling, and dry stacking storage (Lottermoser 2011). As every ton of metal extracted,
typically generates a ton of waste, and often orders of magnitude more due to inefficiencies
there is a large need to manage these tailings in some way (Lottermoser 2011, Adiansyah et
al. 2015). Due to site specific geology, tailings compositions vary greatly in metal
composition but are universal with respect to being low in organic matter and essential plant
nutrients, and are often fine textured sandy material (Sample and Barlow 2013, Kossoff et al.
2014).
Tailings pose a significant risk as they often contain potentially hazardous contaminants and
trace heavy metals. In semi-arid and arid environments, dry stacking storage is a common
technique and desirable for both economical and reclamation purposes. This process entails
filtered tailings emerging from a processing facility in the form of a slurry that are then
placed, spread, and compacted to form a stable tailings “dry stack” (Figure 1.3). This process
requires no dam to be built to retain the tailings and no water supply to be maintained which
is advantageous considering water conservation and capital costs associated with
geotechnical design (Davies 2011).

11

Wetland
Tailings

Figure 1.3. Overview image of the closed tailings facility (Highmont Tailings) located at
Highland Valley Copper Mine located in British Columbia, Canada

One main advantage of dry stack tailings is that progressive reclamation can occur with
closure of the facility. However, with arid conditions, wind dispersion and water erosion of
fine particle tailings poses a large risk. To combat this issue, phytostabilization and
revegetation is often used to reduce wind contamination and erosion (Mendez and Maier
2008, Davies 2011). Historically, the revegetation of these closed tailings facilities have not
utilized native plant species and instead utilized agronomic grass species, and have not
addressed a long term succession plan for the plant community (Mendez and Maier 2008).
Due to the difficulty in reclaiming more complex ecosystems such as forests, and often
higher costs associated with the work, most disturbed sites are reclaimed to a grassland state.
However, most reclaimed grasslands are often characterized by a low diversity, non-native,
agronomic, or exotic species (Swab et al. 2017). This problem can partially be attributed to

12
the large scale of reclamation operations and limited options of native seed compared with
large quantities of agronomic seed availability, low price, and heartiness or ease of
establishment of many of these species on harsh mine spoils (Burton and Burton 2002).
The practice of surface-mine reclamation and creation of artificial grasslands is evident in the
Appalachian region and midwestern United States where these grasslands comprise a
significant portion of the restored landscape (Brothers 1990, Swab et al. 2017). These lands
were reclaimed in the 1970’s, and at this time converged towards the establishment of
monoculture or low diversity grasslands dominated by hardy, non-native, forage crops.
Furthermore, reclamation was guided by two objectives; minimizing cost as most companies
did not budget funds for reclamation, and simply establishing vegetative cover (Brothers
1990). Currently, many approaches to mine reclamation still use non-native or exotic species
as a cover crop and do not utilize native species’ local adaptations to attain the same goal.
Incorporating specific, well adapted native plants into reclamation can increase the
biodiversity of the ecosystem, and potentially improve soil conditions more quickly than
non-native plants (Swab et al. 2017). Even as these landscapes have been vegetatively
recovered, ecosystem functioning, and biodiversity measures are nowhere near current

Figure 1.4 Twenty-five-year-old reclaimed vegetative cover crop landscape
represented by a monoculture mosaic of non-desirable, agronomic grass species such
as Bromus inermis, Elymus lanceolatus, and Thinopyrum intermedium located at
Highmont Tailings, Highland Valley Copper Mine, British Columbia, Canada.

13
objectives held by stakeholders, industry, government regulators, and Indigenous
communities.
In the case of HVC, as evidenced by Figure 1.4., historical revegetation practices have used
hearty, fast growing, agronomic species to achieve their goal of revegetating mine-spoils.
However, the established agronomic plant species hinder the establishment of native plants
through competitive exclusion (Young et al. 2015).
Restoration of mine lands is a complex issue with biotic, abiotic, and social factors all
playing a role. The new ecological problem however lies within the fact that reclamation and
closure plans have historically ignored pre-existing natural vegetation and opted for a hearty,
fast-growing, non-desirable vegetative monocrop cover on mine-spoils. The disparity
between historical practice and new restoration and reclamation standards has now placed
new challenges to reclaim these already burdened lands to a more biodiverse ecosystem state
on established vegetative communities. As evidenced by Figure 1.1, a vast array of mine sites
across B.C. need further restoration or reclamation and may already be composed of nonnative communities due to historical practices. The problem ahead is with the recovery of
native communities in fields dominated by fast-growing exotic species, which is often
impeded by the competitive advantages of the established community (Yahdjian et al. 2017).
As the availability of native plant seed increases, combined with the positive effects and
viability of using natives on disturbed mine lands, it is clear that native plants can increase
ecosystem functioning, however a mechanism to assist these species establish is also a
question that needs to be addressed. A mechanism to transition these communities on mine
lands may be prescribed fire and represents a significant knowledge gap within existing
scientific literature that my research aims to examine.

14

PRESCRIBED FIRE TO FACCILITATE ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY IN
GRASSLANDS
In natural ecosystems, disturbances, notably fire, have major positive and negative
impacts on ecosystems as they can influence the abundance and diversity of species, nutrient
cycling, biomass accumulation, primary production and other processes (Pulsford et al.
2016). In semi-arid grasslands the relationship between prescribed fire and plant community
response generally does not follow a uniform consensus on the post-fire effects on plant
communities (Rau et al. 2008). Overall effects of burning on plant and soil interactions may
differ due to plant cover types, and differences in fine and woody fuels available which can
directly affect fire severity (Rau et al. 2008).
Generally, fire can modify relationships among species on the landscape and change
dominance in a community due to species specific responses to changes in soil moisture,
nitrogen (N) cycling, and direct effects on meristem mortality (Ghermandi et al. 2004,
Augustine et al. 2014). Fire in semi-arid and arid ecosystems has shown to increase the
availability of inorganic N in the first-year post-burn, as well as for extended periods beyond
the burn (Rau et al. 2007). This increase in plant available nitrogen can influence regrowth,
native species seedling establishment, and establishment of annual plants. These factors
ultimately aid in site recovery (Rau et al. 2007, Augustine et al. 2014), therefore making it
beneficial in reclamation of mine spoils where nitrogen is limited and it is an objective to
change trajectory of the plant community.
Grasslands also benefit from fire in arid and semi-arid environments where microbes cannot
readily breakdown accumulated plant litter (Brockway et al. 2002). A secondary benefit of
litter removal or consumption of accumulated litter by fire is a result that often favors
establishment of new species due to subsequent release of nutrients immobilized within the
dead plant tissue, increased solar radiation to the ground, and allowing a period of reduced
competition for new species to enter (Brockway et al., 2002, Scheintaub et al. 2009).
Additionally, in highly productive sites, litter accumulation that is left in a state without
disturbance or some form of reduction may ultimately restrict above ground net primary
productivity (ANPP), species richness, and favor tall lived species reducing functional
diversity in life form (Peco et al. 2012).

15
Plant community responses to prescribed fire within the literature regarding community
composition, cover, and diversity have been presented as net neutral, positive, or negative
based on different studies. Scheintaub et al. (2009) found that spring burning within a semiarid shortgrass steppe community resulted in an overall decrease in ANPP by 20% in burned
vs unburned controls. However, as ANPP decreased through perennial and annual grass
productivity, perennial forb production and total vegetative cover increased in response to
fire. Additionally, forb response to fire is most consistent with regard to increasing in total
cover after fire which remains consistent within literature presented by Ruthven et al. (2000)
where forb coverage was greater on burned than unburned sites. This increase in cover is
likely due to an interaction between death of the apical meristem during spring burning in
select species which removes growth inhibition and spurs formation of new shoots (Forest
Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station 2000). In contrast to this, Augustine et al. (2014)
found that annual burning significantly reduced cool season (C3) plant production and forb
cover but did not affect warm season (C4) plant production. Positive plant community
responses including increases in plant species richness and plant cover have been historically
noted in semi-arid grasslands by Kirsch et al. (1972) with a steep increase in plant richness
post-fire from 38 to 69 species. More notably, McDonald et al. (2011) found that prescribed
fire reduced the abundance of dominant non-native grasses, while increasing the abundance
and diversity of native grasses and herbaceous dicotyledons. For these reasons, the
introduction of prescribed fire represents a promising opportunity to overcome some of the
challenges presented above with respect to recycling nutrients to nutrient limited tailings,
while also allowing for reduced competition and new species to enter the ecosystem.

HISTORY OF INDIGENOUS USE OF FIRE & CHANGING LANDSCAPES
The history of fire on the landscape within B.C. presents a complicated and everchanging path forward as we continue to modify our ecosystems and the way we manage our
lands and the way we think. As the semi-arid grasslands of the interior receive typically less
than 400 mm of rainfall on average, the low precipitation patterns paired with warm summer
temperatures and moderate to high winds create a landscape that is naturally conducive to

16
wildfire (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2021). Prescribed burning as the
purposeful application of fire to the landscape is regularly used in the management of fireprone ecosystems worldwide (Penman et al. 2011). The semi-arid grasslands of B.C. present
a prehistoric history of anthropogenic burning by Indigenous peoples that ranges from
roughly 7000 years before present (Blackstock and McAllister 2004, Lewis et al. 2018) to
shortly after European settlement in B.C. in the early 1900’s. Prescribed burning by
Indigenous communities then was halted as European interest in the forest complex no longer
permitted burning of any kind (Lewis et al. 2018). This Euro-American view directly clashed
with Indigenous traditional knowledge that utilized the benefits of prescribed burning
(Kimmerer and Lake 2001).
The common thought that Indigenous peoples lived a commonly circulated misconception
about minimal to no level of land use and management contrasts with the reality that
Indigenous peoples practiced a philosophy of respect for natural resource management that
allowed for a sustainable lifestyle that maximized productivity of food and materials (Turner
et al. 2000, Kimmerer and Lake 2001). Land management practices such as foraging and
harvesting that aided in the maintenance and enhancement of their lands, water, and
resources to support sustainable living is derived from generations of knowledge being
passed on from experimentation and observation (Turner et al. 2000). Indigenous use of fire
represents one of these practices that was utilized by many Indigenous peoples throughout
North America and B.C. (Kimmerer and Lake 2001) to meet ecological-based goals of
selecting for desirable vegetation, and as a means of maintaining important grazing habitats
by controlling tree encroachment and managing forest fuel loads (Turner et al. 2000, Storm
and Shebitz 2006, Lewis et al. 2018).
As the landscape of B.C. changes due to environmental and social factors, like the
implementation of fire exclusion in the early 1900’s, significant changes in the ecological
and cultural conditions across the province have occurred and are readily visible upon
inspection of our vulnerable grasslands ecosystems. Indigenous Elders from the
Nlaka’pamux (Thompson), Silx (Okanagan), Secwepemc (Shuswap), Stl’atl’imx (Lillooet)
and Ts’ilquot’in (Chilcotin) nations from the southern interior of B.C., have recalled and
reminisced when grasses were belly-high to a horse and the state of the grasslands were

17
thriving (Blackstock and McAllister 2004). Many bunchgrass biogeoclimatic zones that once
naturally presented a high plant diversity to support ungulate species and complex foodways
for Indigenous communities have now been replaced with woody encroachment of sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). These zones are now at risk of
shrinking in size and diversity (Fuhlendorf et al. 2008, Lewis et al. 2018). Cumulative effects
of overgrazing by cattle and fire exclusion have strongly interacted to cause shifts in the plant
community composition to be less productive and comprised of more ephemeral species.
These changes also affect the habitat of grassland specialists and keystone species as these
areas are slowly converted into shrublands and forests (Fuhlendorf et al. 2008, Symstad and
Leis 2017).
Fire exclusion has also led to a shift in Indigenous community dynamics and the loss of
important cultural uses of ancestral lands. Currently, prescribed burning for many Indigenous
cultures is significantly reduced as it can only be completed under strict government consent
and typically only under use for human asset protection through reducing fuel loads (Penman
et al. 2011, Lewis et al. 2018). However, a paradigm shift has occurred as larger incidences
of destructive fires are increasing because of mismanagement and fire suppression efforts
(Flannigan et al. 2009). Additionally, larger quantities of western scientific literature are
surfacing that supports the use of prescribed burning as a management technique, to aid in
the ecological health of fire derived ecosystems and as an ecosystem management strategy
(Sutherland 2019). This resulting change in thinking has come full circle as Indigenous fire
management practices are now being recognized and adapted as an effective way to manage
our landscapes (Nikolakis and Roberts 2020).
As the grasslands of BC have evolved naturally and anthropogenically in a fire-driven
ecosystem, the reintroduction of prescribed burning offers an approach to manage our
landscapes while fostering positive ecological and cultural benefits.

18

THESIS RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This thesis examines a unique project and partnership between Teck Highland Valley
Copper (HVC) and the Nlaka’pamux peoples. Part of the building of this relationship rests on
the intent to collaborate on the goal of reclaiming and restoring ecosystem function and the
traditional land uses back to a pre-mined landscape to the extent possible given the impacts
mining has created. This collaboration involves the implementation of Indigenous traditional
ecological knowledge of prescribed burning, blended with contemporary ecological theory
pertaining to plant community dynamics. The following three research questions were posed:
1) What level of involvement have the Nlaka’pamux peoples had in the prescribed fire
project and what practices have industry professionals employed to connect with
these communities?
2) What role does fire intensity play in the vegetative community when trying to
establish native species under controlled conditions?
3) Can prescribed fire successfully act as a disturbance to transition a non-desirable,

low-diversity, agronomic vegetative community to a native grassland?

Each research question is paired with an experimental procedure, and associated
methodology aimed at answering the specific question.
To address the above questions, I have conducted a three-part study involving a critical
analysis of the industry / Indigenous relationship (Chapter 2), a prescribed burning field
study (Chapter 3), and a mesocosm prescribed burning greenhouse study (Chapter 4). I then
provide the management implications to consider (Chapter 5).
The objectives of the field study are three-fold: 1) to examine the role prescribed fire plays in
the vegetative community with respect to biodiversity measures, 2) to examine how
prescribed fire modifies soil nutrient cycling with respect to total carbon (C) , total nitrogen,
and C:N ratio, and 3) to examine if differential establishment responses occurred between
seven native grassland species in post-fire conditions. The objectives of the greenhouse study
are three-fold: 1) to examine the role fire intensity plays in the vegetative community when
trying to establish native species under controlled conditions, 2) to examine how fire

19
intensity and disturbance treatment modify soil nutrients such as total carbon, total nitrogen,
and C:N ratio, and 3) examine if differential establishment responses occur between six
selected native grassland species in post-fire conditions.
Additionally, in order to address the third question of interest I conducted a critical analysis
of how the industry / Indigenous working partnership came to be with respect to the fire
project. More specifically, through the use of semi-structured interviews my objective was to
examine: 1) What level of involvement the Nlaka’pamux peoples had in the prescribed fire
project and what practices industry professionals employed to connect with these
communities? The results of this study will contribute to the body of contemporary
ecological knowledge regarding novel techniques used in reclaiming biodiverse native
bunchgrass grasslands to low diversity, agronomic dominated mined environments. These
results will benefit reclamation practitioners and researchers in enhancing biodiversity to low
diversity sites. I also examined and outline the history of mining within B.C. with respect to
land use, and I provide context on the use of prescribed burning through its use traditionally
with Indigenous peoples while also introducing other supporting literature to support its use
as a proposed reclamation tool (Chapter 1).

20

Literature Cited
Adiansyah JS, Rosano M, Vink S, Keir G. 2015. A framework for a sustainable approach to mine
tailings management: Disposal strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 108:1050–1062.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.139.
Armstrong B, Gowan R. 2020. First Nation community locations. Ministry of Forests, Lands,
Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/first-nation-community-locations.
Augustine DJ, Brewer P, Blumenthal DM, Derner JD, von Fischer JC. 2014. Prescribed fire, soil
inorganic nitrogen dynamics, and plant responses in a semiarid grassland. Journal of Arid
Environments. 104:59–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.022.
Azapagic A. 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining
and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 12(6):639–662. doi:10.1016/S09596526(03)00075-1.
Bellringer C. 2016. An audit of compliance and enforcement of the mining sector.
Blackstock M, McAllister R. 2004. First Nations perspectives on the grasslands of the interior of
British Columbia. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 8(1):24–46. doi:10.5038/21624593.8.1.2.
Blanchette ML, Lund MA. 2016. Pit lakes are a global legacy of mining: an integrated approach to
achieving sustainable ecosystems and value for communities. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability. 23:28–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.012.
Bradshaw A. 1997. Restoration of mined lands - using natural processes. Ecological Engineering.
8:255–269. doi:10.1023/A:1005177815154.
Brockway DG, Gatewood RG, Paris RB. 2002. Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass
prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing
seasons. Environmental Management. 65(2):135–152.
Brothers TS. 1990. Surface-mine grasslands. Geographical Review. 80(3):209–225.

21
Burton PJ, Burton CM. 2002. Promoting genetic diversity in the production of large quantities of
native plant seed. Ecological Restoration. 20(2):117–123. doi:10.3368/er.20.2.117.
Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill
R V., Paruelo J, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature. 387(6630):253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0.
Davies M. 2011. Filtered dry stacked tailings: the fundamentals. Proceedings Tailings and Mine
Waste 2011, Vancouver BC.:9
Fernandez L, Silver J. 2017. Indigenous people, wage labour and trade unions: the historical
experience in Canada. Winnipeg: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-Manitoba.
Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, De Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM. 2009. Implications of
changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18(5):483–
507. doi:10.1071/WF08187.
Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station U. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of
fire on flora. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm.
Fuhlendorf SD, Archer SA, Smeins F, Engle DM, Taylor CA. 2008. The combined influence of
grazing, fire, and herbaceous productivity on tree–grass interactions. (May 2014):219–238.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34003-6_12.
Garris HW, Baldwin SA, Van Hamme JD, Gardner WC, Fraser LH. 2016. Genomics to assist mine
reclamation: A review. Restoration Ecology. 24(2):165–173. doi:10.1111/rec.12322.
Gasch C, Huzurbazar S, Stahl P. 2014. Measuring soil disturbance effects and assessing soil
restoration success by examining distributions of soil properties. Applied Soil Ecology.
76:102–111. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.12.012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.12.012.
Ghermandi L, Guthmann N, Bran D. 2004. Early post-fire succession in northwestern Patagonia
grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02238.x.
Ghose MK. 2004. Effect of opencast mining on soil fertility. Journal of Scientific and Industrial
Research. 63(12):1006–1009.

22
Grigg A. 2014. Biodiversity and the extractive industry. Greener Management International.
2005(52):62–76. doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2005.wi.00007.
Hilson G. 2002. Land use conflicts. Land Use Policy. 19:65–73. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00043
6.
Holzel N, Buisson E, Dutoit T. 2018. EDITORIAL : Species introduction -a major topic in
vegetation restoration http://www.jstor.org/stable/41410183 Species introduction - a major
topic in vegetation restoration. 15(2):161–165.
Horowitz LS, Keeling A, Lévesque F, Rodon T, Schott S, Thériault S. 2018. Indigenous peoples’
relationships to large-scale mining in post/colonial contexts: Toward multidisciplinary
comparative perspectives. Extractive Industries and Society. 5(3):404–414.
doi:10.1016/j.exis.2018.05.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.05.004.
Ignace M, Ignace RE. 2017. Secwépemc people, land, and laws. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Jones L. 2021a. MINFILE Production Database. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon
Innovation. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/minfile-production-database.
Jones L. 2021b. MINFILE Inventory Database. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon
Innovation. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/minfile-inventory-database.
Kimmerer RW, Lake FK. 2001. The role of indigenous burning in land management. Journal of
Forestry. 99(11):36–41.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2001/00000099/00000011/art00008.
Kossoff D, Dubbin WE, Alfredsson M, Edwards SJ, Macklin MG, Hudson-Edwards KA. 2014.
Mine tailings dams: Characteristics, failure, environmental impacts, and remediation.
Applied Geochemistry. 51:229–245. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.09.010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.09.010.
Kumar Dhir R. 2016. Sustainable development goals Indigenous peoples in focus.
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/indigenous-tribal/publications/WCMS_503715/lang-en/index.htm.

23
Lewis M, Christianson A, Spinks M. 2018. Return to flame: Reasons for burning in Lytton First
Nation, British Columbia. Journal of Forestry. 116(2):143–150. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvx007.
Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, Hooper DU, Huston MA,
Raffaelli D, Schmid B, et al. 2001. Ecology: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current
knowledge and future challenges. Science. 294(5543):804–808.
doi:10.1126/science.1064088.
Lottermoser B. 2011. Mine Wastes. Mine Wastes. 7(6). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05133-7.
Major Mines in British Columbia. 2021. BCMine Information, The Ministry of Energy, Mines, and
Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI). https://mines.nrs.gov.bc.ca/projects.
Marshall B. 2019. The State of Canada’s Mining Industry - Facts & Figures. :104.
https://mining.ca/documents/facts-and-figures-2019/.
Marshall DP. 2018. Claiming the land : British Columbia and the making of a new El Dorado. 1st ed.
Vancouver, BC: Ronsdale Press.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=JAwEuAEACAAJ&dq=marshall+claiming+the+land&hl=
en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn7bLtvIriAhWCITQIHbkNC_YQ6AEIKjAA%0Ahttps://www.d
eslibris.ca/ID/454366.
Melosi M V. 2017. Transient Landscapes: Insights on a changing planet. By Ellen Wohl.
Environmental History. 22(April). doi:10.1093/envhis/emw116.
Mendez MO, Maier RM. 2008. Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and semiarid environments
- An emerging remediation technology. Environmental Health Perspectives. 116(3):278–283.
doi:10.1289/ehp.10608.
Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources - Mining and Minerals Division. 2008. Health,
Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia.
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/HealthandSafety/Documents/HSRC2008.pdf%5Cnhttp://
www.empr.gov.bc.ca/mining/healthandsafety/documents/hsrc2008.pdf.
Munarriz GJ. 2008. Rhetoric and reality: The world bank development policies, mining corporations,
and Indigenous communities in Latin America. International Community Law Review.
10(4):431–443. doi:10.1163/187197308X356930.

24
Neves AC de O, Nunes FP, de Carvalho FA, Fernandes GW. 2016. Neglect of ecosystems services
by mining, and the worst environmental disaster in Brazil. Nature e Conservacao. 14(1):24–
27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.03.002.
Nikolakis WD, Roberts E. 2020. Indigenous fire management: a conceptual model from literature.
Ecology and Society. 25(4).
Osman N, Barakbah SS. 2011. The effect of plant succession on slope stability. Ecological
Engineering. 37(2):139–147. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.08.002.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.08.002.
Palmer AD. 2005. Maps of Experience: the anchoring of land to story in Secwepemc discourse. 1st
ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/418748.
Peco B, Carmona CP, de Pablos I, Azcárate FM. 2012. Effects of grazing abandonment on
functional and taxonomic diversity of Mediterranean grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment. 152:27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.02.009.
Penman TD, Christie A. N. FJA, Bradstock RA, Cary GJ, Henderson MK, Price O, Tran C, Wardle
GM, Williams RJ, York A. 2011. Prescribed burning: how can it work to conserve the things
we value? International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20:721–733.
Percy S, Lubchenco J, Almeida F, Armsworth P, Bennett A, Ebi K, Ehrmann J, Griffith J, Kumar P,
Pagiola S, et al. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. :36.
http://www.alexandrina.org/CSSP/Event/Material/MEA_businessesdocument.353.aspx.pdf.
Pulsford SA, Lindenmayer DB, Driscoll DA. 2016. A succession of theories: Purging redundancy
from disturbance theory. Biological Reviews. 91(1):148–167. doi:10.1111/brv.12163.
Rau BM, Blank RR, Chambers JC, Johnson DW. 2007. Prescribed fire in a Great Basin sagebrush
ecosystem: Dynamics of soil extractable nitrogen and phosphorus. Journal of Arid
Environments. 71(4):362–375. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2007.05.006.
Rau BM, Chambers JC, Blank RR, Johnson DW. 2008. Prescribed fire, soil, and plants: Burn effects
and interactions in the central Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61(2):169–
181. doi:10.2111/07-037.1.

25
Ruggles TA, Gerrath JA, Ruhm CT, Jefferson AJ, Davis CA, Blackwood CB. 2021. Surface mines
show little progress towards native species forest restoration following 35 years of passive
management after initial reclamation. Land Degradation and Development.(January):2351–
2359. doi:10.1002/ldr.3904.
Sample D, Barlow S. 2013. What Is Soil Restoration? Where Can SR be used?
http://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/426/426-123/426-123_pdf.pdf.
Samuelson K. 2021. Permitted Mine Areas - Major Mine. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low
Carbon Innovation. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/permitted-mine-areas-majormine.
Scheintaub MR, Derner JD, Kelly EF, Knapp AK. 2009. Response of the shortgrass steppe plant
community to fire. Journal of Arid Environments. 73(12):1136–1143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.05.011.
Sengupta M. 1993. Environmental impacts of mining: Monitoring, restoration, and control.
Storm L, Shebitz D. 2006. Evaluating the purpose, extent, and ecological restoration applications of
indigenous burning practices in Southwestern Washington. Ecological Restoration.
24(4):256–268. doi:10.3368/er.24.4.256.
Sutherland CR. 2019 Sep 10. Encountering the burn: Prescribed burns as contact zones.
Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space.:251484861987104.
doi:10.1177/2514848619871047.
Swab RM, Lorenz N, Byrd S, Dick R. 2017. Native vegetation in reclamation: Improving habitat and
ecosystem function through using prairie species in mine land reclamation. Ecological
Engineering. 108:525–536. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.05.012.
Symstad AJ, Leis SA. 2017. Woody Encroachment in Northern Great Plains Grasslands:
Perceptions, Actions, and Needs. Natural Areas Journal. 37(1):118–127.
doi:10.3375/043.037.0114.
Teucher A, Albers S, Hazlitt S, Province of British Columbia. 2019. bcdata.

26
Tordoff GM, Baker AJM, Willis AJ. 2000. Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation
of metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere. 41(1–2):219–228. doi:10.1016/S00456535(99)00414-2.
Turner NJ, Clifton H. 2009. “It’s so different today”: Climate change and indigenous lifeways in
British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change. 19(2):180–190.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.005.
Turner NJ, Ignace MB, Ignace R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal
peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications. 10(5):1275–1287. doi:10.1890/10510761(2000)010[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2.
Turner SR, Pearce B, Rokich DP, Dunn RR, Merritt DJ, Majer JD, Dixon KW. 2006. Influence of
polymer seed coatings, soil raking, and time of sowing on seedling performance in postmining restoration. Restoration Ecology. 14(2):267–277. doi:10.1111/j.1526100X.2006.00129.x.
Virgone KM, Ramirez-Andreotta M, Mainhagu J, Brusseau ML. 2018. Effective integrated
frameworks for assessing mining sustainability. Environmental Geochemistry and Health.
40(6):2635–2655. doi:10.1007/s10653-018-0128-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-0180128-6.
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human Domination of Earth’s
Ecosystems. 277(July). http://www.rockymountainlawjournal.org/general.html.
Watson JEM, Jones KR, Fuller RA, Marco M Di, Segan DB, Butchart SHM, Allan JR, McDonaldMadden E, Venter O. 2016. Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion
and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conservation Letters.
9(6):413–421. doi:10.1111/conl.12295.
Yahdjian L, Tognetti PM, Chaneton EJ. 2017. Plant functional composition affects soil processes in
novel successional grasslands. Functional Ecology. 31(9):1813–1823. doi:10.1111/13652435.12885.

27
Young I, Renault S, Markham J. 2015. Low levels organic amendments improve fertility and plant
cover on non-acid generating gold mine tailings. Ecological Engineering. 74:250–257.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.10.026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.10.026.

Chapter 2 : EXAMINING INDIGENOUS INVOLVEMENT WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED BURNING TRIALS CONDUCTED AT HIGHLAND
VALLEY COPPER MINE

IINTRODUCTION
The extent of mining impacts on Indigenous communities vary on the approach of the
mining company, regulatory regimes, socio-economic conditions, and Indigenous community
response (Horowitz et al. 2018). The transformative nature of mine operations has often resulted
in the displacement of Indigenous communities from traditional territories, and the curbing of
traditional land uses. In some cases, these legacies have formed levels of distrust of the mining
industry and their practices (Melosi 2017). For Indigenous communities located adjacent or in
proximity to mines, many concerns arise from the environmental risks associated with mining.
Most commonly, downstream ecological effects from the mine are of great concern that result in
the community holding a decreased confidence in freshwater quality and their terrestrial
ecosystems. This ultimately results in the displacement of Indigenous land uses (Lottermoser
2011, Horowitz et al. 2018).
Historically, for mines operating on Indigenous territories, where communities have complex
and significant connection to the land, issues of downstream effects of mining were often
excluded from planning and decision making. In Canada, due to the volatility of mineral
markets, paired with a lack of policy for managing abandoned lands, a legacy exists of
abandoned and contaminated sites that caused negative socio-economic and environmental
impacts for nearby communities (Monosky and Keeling 2021). As public demands for socially
responsible and ecologically viable industrial practices have increased, mine companies have
responded by representing environmental planning, reclamation and restoration of disturbed
lands and Indigenous livelihoods at the forefront of mine operations (Fonseca et al. 2014). Given
the unique circumstances of mining, such that ore bodies may only be located in particular areas,
it is in the best interest of extraction companies to maintain a social license to operate and engage
with communities to gain access to land and resources. Furthermore, changes in institutional and
legislative reforms within the province of B.C. have resulted in the promotion of consent-based

29
and collaborative approaches that consider Indigenous peoples, their land, culture, and
economies (Allard and Curran 2021). Many mine companies in B.C. are embracing a task of
responsibility to work with Indigenous communities. One way that industry has attempted to
engage with Indigenous communities is utilizing and integrating traditional ecological
knowledge.
Indigenous peoples of the southern interior of B.C. have developed sustainable management
practices since time immemorial that utilize what we understand today as fundamental ecological
principles (Turner et al. 2000). This knowledge informs a way of understanding and an intimate
connection to the land that facilitated a belief system that imposed social and spiritual sanctions
on people who did not treat all living things sustainably and with respect. All interactions with
the environment are grounded in respect for changing ecologies, and fine tuning ways to
sustainably harvest fish, plants, and animals to ensure sustainable yield for the future (Ignace
and Ignace 2017). This type of natural resource management style and philosophy is becoming a
focus of attention for many industries, professionals, and researchers that seek ways to advocate
for biodiversity and provide models for sustainable practices that extend beyond western ways of
knowing. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom have also been recognized as
equivalents and complementary to western scientific knowledge. This has encouraged western
researchers to apply traditional ecological knowledge (Turner et al. 2000).
Highland Valley Copper Mine (HVC), located within British Columbia (B.C.), Canada, operates
within traditional Nlaka’pamux territory. The traditional territory of the Nlaka’pamux is centered
around the Nicola Valley and stretches from the Fraser Canyon and Princeton in the south to
Cache Creek and Kamloops in the north (Figure 2.1) (British Columbia Assembly of First
Nations 2020, Cold Water Indian Band 2021).

30

Highland Valley
Copper Mine (HVC)

Figure 2.1 Nlaka'pamux traditional territory within B.C. amended with
approximate location of Highland Valley Copper Mine (HVC) (Cold
Water Indian Band, 2021)

Highland Valley Copper Mine has committed to work with Indigenous communities to improve
their cultural awareness and inclusion with the objective of creating sustainable benefits for
Indigenous communities. Operations at HVC are developing programs to build meaningful
relationships and incorporate the interests of the local Nlaka’pamux Nation, by applying peoplecentered frameworks and principles of dialogue to strengthen relationships with local Indigenous
peoples (Teck 2021). An example of HVC engagement with local Indigenous communities is a
prescribed fire trial that was implemented in partnership with the Nlaka’pamux Nation to

31
incorporate traditional Indigenous knowledge of prescribed fire into reclamation practices. This
collaboration between traditional ecological knowledge and western scientific knowledge to
manage landscapes represents a promising strategy to reconcile past inequities while also
restoring the ecosystems we all depend on. The maintenance and legitimacy of these
relationships are sometimes questioned as Bernauer and Slowey (2020) argue that when
commodity prices are low, operations shift towards restoring profitability while rolling back on
other commitments such as environmental and community commitments. This research aims to
examine the level of Indigenous involvement, while also assessing how project practitioners that
were instrumental to the project considered the needs and perspectives of the Nlaka’pamux
community when creating and conducting the prescribed fire trials at the Highland Valley
Copper Mine.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RESEARCH METHODS
It should also be noted that not all Indigenous communities may have these same
experiences, and specific knowledge offerings should be understood within their own cultural
context, place on the land, and way of knowing apart from western ideologies and science
(Kovach 2009). I acknowledge that the scope of this analysis and overall examination has been
completed on western terms, without any direct Indigenous participation. I also acknowledge that
my analysis and consideration of this project is one that has a limited scope and only represents
data accessed through the interview process.
Semi-structured interviews are valued for their use in many different research fields. The unique
variability in questions and prompts aims to draw participants more fully into the topic under
study (Rabionet 2011). Prompts typically include open-ended and theoretically driven questions
that aim to elicit data that is grounded in the experience of the participants and guided by the
constructs presented by whoever is conducting the research (Galletta 2012). The semi-structured
interview nature allows for the interviewee to engage in specific topics that were of interest to
them while facilitating time for reflection and digression from listed questions. This research
method was selected due to its compatibility with Indigenous Methodologies and oral foundation
that remains highly significant in Indigenous cultures, including the use of story and

32
conversation to support intergenerational knowledge exchange (Ignace and Ignace 2017, Kovach
2012). Interviews were conducted under TRU human ethics application (#100999).
I used qualitative semi-structured interviews with four non-Indigenous mine industry
stakeholders who were instrumental in project initialization and working with the Nlaka’pamux
community. A total of four, in-depth interviews were completed with the use of an interview
guide to direct the topics of discussion (Appendix A). Each interview was approximately 60
minutes in length, with a total cumulative recording time of 288 minutes. All highlighted quotes
for the purposes of this research have been kept anonymous. Our discussions were centered on
the following subjects or themes of inquiry: 1) Processes to build Indigenous / industry
relationships; 2) Limitations to the prescribed fire project and Indigenous engagement; and 3);
Opportunities to improve future engagement and collaboration.
All interview data was recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. A transcript of each
respective interview was sent to each participant for final review prior to use. Of these
interviews, three participants worked for the primary consulting company (Integral Ecology
Group) in charge of the prescribed fire project management. Integral Ecology Group (IEG)
assumed a major project role and was responsible for running workshops for HVC (Teck),
conducting the Indigenous outreach, research design, field data collection, and project
management the day of the prescribed burning.
Participant #1 is a landscape ethnoecologist with IEG and works with both the reclamation and
culture team where he primarily works with integrating Indigenous knowledge with scientific
data. Participant #1 has experience working with Indigenous peoples in Taiwan where he studied
ethnoecological classification of mountain forests and compared Indigenous knowledge systems
to ecological classification systems. Participant #2 is an ecologist who began working with
Indigenous communities and the mining industry when she started consulting with IEG in 2011.
Participant #2 expressed interest in working with Indigenous communities and having the
opportunity to learn from them. Participant #3 is an ecologist and soil scientist. Participant #3
has a long-standing history of working with HVC since 1998 on various contracting services that
are focused on their reclamation programs. Participant #4 an employee at HVC and supervises a
team of individuals within the environment department and conducts work for permitting and
reclamation at the mine. Participant #4 has a background in forestry and has played a role at

33
HVC to advocate for early planning and closure of mine sites. Participant #4 also spends a
significant portion of time coordinating Indigenous technical working groups and has worked for
HVC for 15 years. It must be noted here that individuals were not recruited for interviews from
the HVC community team, the Indigenous contractors that worked on the study or technical
representatives from the groups HVC engages with.
Table 2-1. Overview of semi-structured interview research participants for interviews conducted
in 2020
Participant # Interview Date

Affiliation

Position

1

July 14, 2020

Consultant, Integral
Ecology Group Ltd.

Non-Indigenous, Landscape
Ethnoecologist, Specialty lies within
braiding reclamation and culture

2

July 14, 2020

Consultant, Integral
Ecology Group Ltd.

Non-Indigenous, Ecologist, Liaising
and engaging with Indigenous peoples
on regulatory and planning initiatives

Aug 18, 2020

Consultant, Integral
Ecology Group Ltd.

Non-Indigenous, Owner of Integral
Ecology Group, Ecologist, Specialty
lies within reclamation and restoration
of mined landscapes with 20+ years of
experience

Aug 31, 2020

Non-Indigenous, Environment
HVC Employee,
Supervisor, Supervises and leads the
Teck Resources
environment, permitting, and
Limited, Highland
reclamation team and coordinates with
Valley Copper Mine
Indigenous technical working groups

3

4

34

CREATING A RELATIONSHIP OUT OF NECESSITY
From the fur trade to the present, the extractive industry within Canada has always been a
key driver of the economy. However, extractive industries, and the mining industry specifically,
carry forward a set of processes that is premised upon and requires Indigenous dispossession
historically, and now Indigenous partnership to gain access to land and resources of interest
(Bernauer and Slowey 2020). Communities interested in maintaining a traditional relationship to
their land amidst natural resource extraction and land development have had to continually
struggle for their rights to participate in decision making (O’Faircheallaigh and Corbett 2005).
Even though mining has operated within the province of B.C. since the mid-1800s, it was not
until the early 21st century that Indigenous peoples have secured a significant role in
environmental management with the passing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration). This declaration places a duty on the crown to consult and
accommodate Indigenous peoples for mining, mineral, and oil and gas exploration (Marshall
2018).
The interviews support research in this specific context around missed opportunities to
acknowledge and accommodate community and Indigenous peoples interests at HVC up until
about the time that the idea of corporate social responsibility and growing public awareness of
the human impacts on the environment came under larger public scrutiny within B.C. All
participants within the study were found to hold a high degree of optimism to enhancing
engagement with Indigenous peoples and improving reclamation processes by learning what
different forms of knowledge can offer to improve land-use management. The participants in the
study all also directly referred to the idea of an industry / Indigenous relationship that served
multiple objectives. I discuss the idea that despite the formation of these relationships being
viewed as a positive step forward, several constraints still exist to produce optimal
collaborations.
Throughout all the interviews it was evident that up until around the year 2012, the capacity for
Indigenous engagement was low. This being said, the capacity at the community level to engage
also plays a factor as industry / Indigenous engagements increased. Participant #3 indicated, “I
had never even heard the word Nlaka’pamux [until] say 2012, [when] it became very clear that

35
[HVC] was taking seriously the aspect of reclamation…and looking to establish a collaborative
relationship with the Nlaka’pamux” (2020). It should be noted that this quote represents a limited
scope into the direct community operations at HVC but does speak in some capacity to the
relevancy of shifting paradigms with conducting engagement. The fact that this work proposal
and scope of work also was granted to individuals (consultants) with expertise in the area speaks
to HVC beginning to take note of the importance to engage these communities to further support
mine operations. Participant #3 also explained that “strong leadership throughout the [HVC]
environment and community department, hold a high degree of integrity and commitment
towards speaking honestly about the various damages that had been caused by the mine and
extending a desire to collaborate on repairing at least some of that damage” (2020). It was
expressed explicitly that outreach towards engaging with the Nlaka’pamux, or other Indigenous
and local communities for that matter takes form through impact benefit agreements and various
committees like technical working groups. Meetings with these groups help assist the mine to
ensure any concerns brought forward do not compromise the ability of the mine to receive
permits. Participant #4 noted this:
“everyone has the duty to get consent on projects…so the government can’t give us a permit if
its opposed by the communities… for example, without having buy-ins from the
communities…we could risk the whole [operation]… Ajax [mine] never went through because
the communities were opposed to it” (2020).
Allard and Curran (2021) provide evidence at a local scale that social license, Indigenous and
community support is critical to ensuring mine operations can move forward. The above
mentioned mine (Ajax) was not given consent by the Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation to
move forward within the culturally significant area known as Pipsell. Utilizing Secwepemc laws,
traditions, customs, and land tenure systems the community assessed whether members would
give their free, prior, and informed consent. This process resulted in the conclusion that the
impacts to this cultural heritage area was simply viewed as unacceptable and likely irreversible
(Allard and Curran 2021).
The idea of conducting this engagement is in part to ease any concerns of the local community at
hand and in this case the Indigenous community to allow the mine operations to continue with
business. Therefore, enhancing Indigenous relationships is partially guided as a business wise

36
decision in order to maintain a social license to operate and reduce business risk, which can put
limits on positive engagement with Indigenous communities.
As the political climate ensured further pressure on industry to assume a higher level of social
responsibility HVC responded, and they increased engagement towards Indigenous communities
as a priority. Participant #4 noted that “[HVC] has had an end land use plan since the late 90s but
did not do any First Nations consultation on that plan” (2020). In 2015 HVC updated their end
land use plan to incorporate Indigenous interests (Collaborative Land Use Planning at Highland
Valley Copper 2021). It was this update to the end land use plan that resulted in increased
engagement between HVC and the Nlaka’pamux community and developed into approximately
twenty-four meetings in the period of 18 months. This level of engagement was noted as the first
of its kind held by HVC (Canadian Mining Journal 2021). Concern regarding the impacts of the
mine from the community resulted in a concerned response from the community as Participant
#1 explained that “there’s rarely a community workshop that stress isn’t expressed” (2020). In
leading the workshops and outreach Participant #4 also explained her experience conducting this
engagement:
“it was the first time, really, someone from Highland Valley [was] coming into the communities
to talk to the community as a whole. And… talking about end mine use planning... may not be
what they want to talk about at all! So, I get questions on everything, like tailings, and
construction and water and everything and a lot of times it was questions I could not answer, or
you know…hard…hard conversations” (2020).
This quote speaks to a level of commitment from HVC to engage with the community in a
manner that derived value as Participant #4 expressed that:
“when you stop and listened and acknowledge the impacts that the mine has had to people... that
was when we started to be able to build relationships with the community members and just like
listen to what they say, and like really try to develop this plan to…know that their concerns have
been heard, and so that was really a huge learning experience for me” (2020).
This expression towards listening and continuing to improve engagement is a step forward to
produce relationships built on specific plans and appropriate objectives.

37
It was two particular workshops held in December of 2017, totaling 5.5 hours where HVC had
committed to seeking input from community members. Objectives of this meeting focused on the
end land use planning of the mine with respect to biosolids application and fire in reclamation
that resulted in the prescribed burning project (Appendix B, Figure B.1). A large sentiment that
was expressed by Nlaka’pamux participants during these workshops and meetings was the desire
to reintroduce prescribed burning into the management of land at HVC which is what
spearheaded the implementation of the prescribed burning project. Participant #1 noted that
“prescribed burning is always something that is talked about in workshops, it’s kind of like
water, it’s an issue that people talk about how burning isn’t incorporated anymore and their
traditional ways of managing the landscape are no longer allowed to be implemented” (2020). It
was this expressed sentiment by the Nlaka’pamux and acknowledgment by Participant #4 of the
“significance of fire scientifically in ecosystems and importance to show that [Nlaka’pamux]
knowledge was valued” (2020) that resulted in a formal prescribed burning project being
implemented at HVC in 2019.
There was certainly a significant shift to increase Indigenous engagement into mine operations.
Industry / Indigenous relationships have been transformed over time and this relationship is
within its infancy in some capacities. Some critical questions to consider enhancing the industry /
Indigenous relationship should determine if the integration of Indigenous knowledge is enough
to constitute an acceptable level of engagement? I discuss additional factors that could constrain
or enhance industry / Indigenous relationships.

PRESCRIBED FIRE PROJECT PARTNERSHIP CONSTRAINTS AND
LMITATIONS
A project partnership considers decision-making, methodology, and project
implementation. Additional considerations must be taken into account when working with
Indigenous communities such as the duty to ensure Indigenous knowledges and peoples are not
exploited (Kovach 2009). Ensuring these communities are not exploited typically involves in
depth engagements with Indigenous communities and partners that draw upon research
methodology that are in line with Indigenous values, while seeking ways to give back in a

38
purposeful, helpful, and relevant manner (Kovach 2009). With these considerations in mind, I
examined how the prescribed fire project between the Nlaka’pamux community and HVC was
implemented and suggest ways in which this relationship could be further enhanced, noting that
my interpretation is limited because I was unable to interview Indigenous participants.
An important sentiment that centers the argument around constraining the industry / Indigenous
relationship for this project was noted by Participant #4:
“I get a sense … that [Indigenous] communities do not want us to just…send them things to
review. They…want to be more part of the process and part of the decision making…” (2020).
In this case it is interesting that this sentiment was expressed by Participant #4 as this represents
an acknowledgment that Indigenous communities are looking to be integrated at a level beyond
document review. Engaging with the community at this level presents a positive approach to
potentially enhancing the industry / Indigenous relationship by bonding with the community, and
the fact that many HVC workshops involving the Indigenous community suggests that HVC is
going beyond the level of document review by the Indigenous community. However, there were
missed opportunities to engage further with the community.
Through the course of approximately sixteen end land use planning and engagement workshops
with various Indigenous communities it was apparent that fire was a significant component that
the communities wanted to address. This interest resulted in a follow-up three-hour workshop
event as noted by Participant #2. During the three-hour workshop, Participant #4 explained that
the level of Nlaka’pamux involvement included gathering traditional information by focusing on
aspects of the “purpose…and timing of burning” (2020). When prompted about the role that the
Nlaka’pamux community played within this project outside of providing the traditional
knowledge of prescribed burning, all interview respondents expressed a similar sentiment.
Ultimately, all respondents alluded to the fact that the role of the Nlaka’pamux in the prescribed
fire project was mostly technical through speaking about the aspects and timing of burning and
entailed a final review of a study design that was created by the consulting company.
Additionally, Participant #2 explained that an “[Indigenous] fire crew from Lytton [was hired] to
help conduct the burn, but beyond that I don’t think there was any other participation” (2020).

39
This level of involvement and technical guidance by the community is paving the way forward
towards creating industry / Indigenous engagements that work toward mutual goals. HVC
showed commitment to listen to and integrate the community beyond document revision through
this act, but this workshop event still presented missed opportunities to integrate Indigenous
knowledge and expertise to a greater extent. Participant #1 explained that “people expressed the
desire to carry out ceremonies before the burn to kind of make it something more meaningful
and…involving more community members where more people would come up to watch… and
that didn’t really happen… and then I think there were also hopes that didn’t just follow up of the
project that there would be more participation… but yeah I guess industry priorities go in
different direction” (2020).
As Participant #1 assumed a significant role in conducting these workshops, this expressed
sentiment in the process acknowledges a missed opportunity.
A large disconnect was also noted between the desire to conduct engagement and the capacity to
follow through at HVC. Both Participant #1 and Participant #2 presented plans of doing various
community engagement programs with the Indigenous communities to increase engagement on
the prescribed fire project. However, Participant #2 explained that a “budget reality check”
(2020) from HVC quickly halted these desires and speculated that one reason this budget check
may have occurred could be because “part of [the level of Indigenous involvement] is dependent
on how much money is flowing through HVC, and what they can fund that isn’t a permit
obligation” (2020). Participant #2 also expressed the notion that “community engagement [in
2020] was supposed to be happening…and then copper [prices] [decreased] due to COVID…”
(2020). Community engagement activities with Indigenous communities across all sectors were
limited in 2020 as COVID-19 limited contact to reduce virus exposure. The perceptions
presented here by the consultant should be verified through HVC to determine the cause of
budget shortfalls as consulting agencies like any business succeed by offering services that
sometimes can go beyond the scope of a project to increase their revenues.
These expressions by both participants indicate the potential role that resource allocation could
play to constrain community engagement at HVC and ultimately the relationships with the
Nlaka’pamux. Bernauer and Slowey (2020) argue that the profitability of operations often

40
constrain environmental and community values. This study demonstrates the importance of codeveloping objectives when traditional ecological knowledge from the community is involved.

OPPROTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ENGAGEMENT AND RECCOMENDATIONS
As extractive industries will continue to operate within the province of B.C., relationships
between industry and Indigenous communities will necessarily continue to evolve. These
relationships are establishing collaborative approaches with common and clearly defined goals
that are navigated outside of the boundaries of government mandates and instead focus on
aspects of wellbeing to foster relationships where mutual benefits are priorities. This helps to
evaluate whether or not community concerns have been addressed and creates a sense of
accountability. Engagement could be improved by creating a closer bond with the community
and conducting engagement that revolves around a larger consideration and enactment of their
needs while considering Indigenous Methodologies to co-develop projects with sensitivity to
community-based concerns. Additionally, community engagement sessions in the context of
collaborative projects would not be limited to a finite number of events but ongoing and on an as
needed basis to ensure both parties are involved at all stages of the project and come to a final
agreement before enactment. As industries move at a fast pace and aim to meet deadlines and
manage all aspects within their control, industry will need to recalibrate in order to engage
Indigenous communities in a way that operates to further engage and develop respectful dialogue
and relationships. As noted previously, my interpretations are limited because I was unable to
interview Indigenous community members.

CONCLUSION
Many Indigenous communities continue to battle with issues of governance over
ancestral lands, downstream health effects from various industries, and continually need to fight
for maintaining a role in managing their lands in the face of industry (O’Faircheallaigh and
Corbett 2005, Horowitz et al. 2018). Not all Indigenous communities are opposed to resource

41
extraction and remain unheard partners in all instances where industry / Indigenous relationships
are formed (Bernauer and Slowey 2020). A central theme of all interviews noted the importance
of conducting Indigenous community engagement and assumed a role that appeared to advocate
for it in one way or another. Even in the practice of my semi-structured interviews there was a
lack of Indigenous engagement, thereby limiting my interpretations and my conclusions.
Nevertheless, I detected a disconnect in the styles and patterns of communication on behalf of
the mine from the consulting company to the Indigenous community, and the capacity for the
Indigenous community to get involved in these matters may also play a significant role in
constraining the industry / Indigenous relationship. It appears this relationship is partially
managed on a basis of mitigating business risk in addition to being susceptible to market
influences to commodity prices. Additionally, a missed opportunity by HVC was to act upon the
sentiment expressed by the Indigenous community that indicated a desire to be involved in a
significant socio-cultural ceremony for this project. These factors suggest a continued
relationship out of necessity, and a disconnect between each party in the roles being assumed
throughout the project. The natural resource and industry sectors need to recognize the potential
they hold to aid in positive social developments beyond what has currently been completed.
Positive momentum is occurring with respect to conducting this engagement and opening a line
of dialogue to address ways to enhance these important relationships. Ultimately, the integration
of Indigenous knowledge through technical participation is likely not enough to constitute as an
acceptable level of engagement. The long-term focus with creating industry / Indigenous
relationships should focus on building capacity to co-create research initiatives that meet goals of
both parties and aims to privilege Indigenous knowledge not only for its technical aspect. This
analysis represents a non-Indigenous, and limited perspective from the consideration and context
of this particular project. Future research should focus on continuing the relationship with the
Nlaka’pamux and integrate the Indigenous perspective on this matter to fully consider the
implications of this relationship. Future engagements should further consider and enhance the
use of Indigenous Methodologies and epistemologies to help develop these relationships and
collaborate on projects that provide mutual benefit to both parties. Finally, future studies on
perception of Indigenous / Industry relationships needs to include direct Indigenous participation
that was desired to be conducted in this study but due to limited timeline was unable to be
completed.

42

Literature Cited
Allard C, Curran D. 2021. Indigenous influence and engagement in mining permitting in British
Columbia, Canada: Lessons for Sweden and Norway? Environmental Management.
doi:10.1007/s00267-021-01536-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01536-0.
Bernauer W, Slowey G. 2020. COVID-19, extractive industries, and indigenous communities in
Canada: Notes towards a political economy research agenda. Extractive Industries and
Society. 7(3):844–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2020.05.012.
Coldwater Indian Band. 2021. Coldwaterband.com. https://www.coldwaterband.com/peopleculture/territory
Collaborative Land Use Planning at Highland Valley Copper. 2021. Teck. [accessed 2021 Nov
19]. https://www.Teck.com/news/stories/2016/collaborative-land-use-planning-athighland-valley-copper
Fonseca A, McAllister ML, Fitzpatrick P. 2014. Sustainability reporting among mining
corporations: A constructive critique of the GRI approach. Journal of Cleaner Production.
84(1):70–83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050.
Galletta A. 2012. Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to
analysis and publication. New York and London: New York University Press.
Horowitz LS, Keeling A, Lévesque F, Rodon T, Schott S, Thériault S. 2018. Indigenous peoples’
relationships to large-scale mining in post/colonial contexts: Toward multidisciplinary
comparative perspectives. Extractive Industries and Society. 5(3):404–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.05.004.
Health, Safety, and Reclamation code for mines in British Columbia. 2008. Victoria, B.C.:
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mining and Minerals Division.

43
Huge B.C. mine has own style. 2021. Canadian Mining Journal. [accessed 2021 Dec 2].
https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/featured-article/huge-b-c-mine-has-own-style/

Ignace M, Ignace RE. 2017. Secwépemc people, land, and laws. McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Kovach M. 2009. Indigenous methodologies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.
Lottermoser B. 2011. Mine Wastes. Mine Wastes. 7(6). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05133-7.
Marshall DP. 2018. Claiming the land : British Columbia and the making of a new El Dorado.
1st ed. Vancouver, BC: Ronsdale Press.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=JAwEuAEACAAJ&dq=marshall+claiming+the+land&
hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn7bLtvIriAhWCITQIHbkNC_YQ6AEIKjAA%0Ahttps://
www.deslibris.ca/ID/454366.
Melosi M V. 2017. Transient landscapes: Insights on a changing planet. By Ellen Wohl.
Environmental History. 22(April). doi:10.1093/envhis/emw116.
Monosky M, Keeling A. 2021. Planning for social and community-engaged closure: A
comparison of mine closure plans from Canada’s territorial and provincial North. Journal
of Environmental Management. 277(August 2020):111324.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111324.
O’Faircheallaigh C, Corbett T. 2005. Indigenous participation in environmental management of
mining projects: The role of negotiated agreements. Environmental Politics. 14(5):629–
647. doi:10.1080/09644010500257912.
Rabionet SE. 2011. How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing
and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report. 16(2):563–566. doi:10.46743/21603715/2011.1070.
Statistic Canada. 2017. 2016 Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Key results from the 2016 Census.
Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-510-X2016001. Ottawa, Ontario. Oct 25.

44
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dppd/abpopprof/index.cfm?Lang=E (accessed May 5th, 2020)
Turner NJ, Ignace MB, Ignace R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of
aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications. 10(5):1275–1287.
doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1275:TEKAWO]2.0.CO;2.

Chapter 3 : UTILIZING PRESCRIBED BURNING AS A TOOL TO
ENHANCE NATIVE GRASSLAND RECOVERY ON A TWENTY-FIVEYEAR-OLD RECLAIMED MINE-TAILINGS FACILITY DOMINATED BY
NON-DESIREABLE VEGETATION

ABSTRACT
Prescribed burning was introduced as a tool to enhance biodiversity within a twenty-fiveyear-old historically reclaimed grassland located at Highland Valley Copper mine in British
Columbia, Canada. The grassland is represented by a current state of ‘arrested succession’
characterized by a low diversity of non-desirable grass species such as Elymus trachycaulus,
Elymus lanceolatus, Thinopyrum intermedium and Bromus inermis. As mines have increasingly
noted the significance of biodiversity and native species to reclamation, goals set out by the mine
and local Indigenous community are directed in reclaiming this ecosystem to a grassland state
dominated by largely more native species. To determine the effects of prescribed burning, three
experimental treatments (Burn, Burn + seeded + tree planted, and control), replicated three times
per treatment, were applied to 20 x 20-meter plots. Sowing of seed comprised of native species
and tree seedling planting that occurred one day after burning. Prescribed burning resulted in a
significant increase of species richness and diversity within the plots that were burned without
any other amendment. Community level divergence was significantly increased across all
treatments due to burning. The role of litter and the highly productive nature of the previously
established plant community was found to play a significant role in arresting succession for the
site and limiting establishment of newly sown and planted species. I confirmed that a significant
negative relationship exists between litter and diversity. These results suggest prescribed burning

45
alone or when paired with seeding in this instance is not enough to allow new entrants into the
plant community. The established plant community remains to be a highly competitive, and
productive even after burning, which limits the succession of new species.

INTRODUCTION
Mining has taken place on a massive global scale for several centuries. The life of a mine
is limited, and damages that occur to the environment through extraction must be reclaimed or
restored after mine closure (Venkateswarlu et al. 2016). It is not uncommon knowledge that
mining operations are one of the major contributors to severe degradation of the environment
(Sheoran et al. 2010), while leaving behind an amount of waste equivalent to the magnitude of
1:1, ore extracted to waste, and often orders more due to inefficiencies (Lottermoser 2011,
Adiansyah et al. 2015). Mine tailings are one waste product of processing and grinding rock
material in order to extract the desired metal. Although variable chemical or physical processes
are implemented to remove each desired commodity (Sample and Barlow 2013, Kossoff et al.
2014), mine tailings are universal with respect to being low in organic matter and essential plant
nutrients, and are often fine textured sandy material (Sample and Barlow 2013, Kossoff et al.
2014). Mine tailings pose a significant risk as they often contain potentially hazardous
contaminants and trace heavy metals. As such, it is a high priority for mines to manage their
tailings from entering groundwaters, rivers and lakes, while also reducing eolian dispersion.
Management techniques vary from riverine disposal, submarine disposal, wetland retention,
backfilling, and dry stacking storage (Lottermoser 2011). In semi-arid and arid environments,
dry stacking storage is a common technique and desirable for both economical and reclamation
purposes as reclamation can occur progressively.
Restoration or reclamation following the mining process is both complex and challenging due to
biotic and abiotic factors that limit ecosystem productivity (Turner et al. 2006, Gasch et al.
2014). Many characteristics of mine wastes often provide unfavorable conditions to successful
vegetation establishment, notably the levels of residual heavy metals, low nutrient status, poor

46
physical structure of soils, and extreme pH values (Tordoff et al. 2000, Sample and Barlow
2013). In semi-arid and arid environments this challenge is further exacerbated by lack of
precipitation which exerts a primary control of plant productivity and composition (Bates et al.
2006). As one of the first steps in reclamation or restoration of these lands is typically
revegetation, the combination, and interactive effects of unfavorable substrate, paired with low
annual precipitation can compound the challenges with restoration in semi-arid mine lands and
poses a unique challenge.
Highland Valley Copper Mine (HVC), located within British Columbia (B.C.), Canada, along
with many other mines have created grasslands dominated by largely non-native, long-lived, sodforming, highly productive, agronomic and forage crops in order to overcome the challenges
stated above (Brothers 1990, Swab et al. 2017). In the 1970’s, a vast majority of reclaimed mine
landscapes utilized these types of grasslands to reclaim disturbed mine lands and provide a
simple vegetative cover. The focus on simply establishing vegetative cover fails however, to
address a long term succession plan for the community and consider the needs of biodiversity in
ecosystem function (Mendez and Maier 2008). Many of these ecosystems have converged
towards a monoculture or low diversity grassland state with aggressive competition resulting
from the hearty, forage species that have ultimately been shown to ‘arrest succession’ (Swab et
al. 2017). This ‘arrested succession’ can be partially attributed to highly productive communities
resulting in significant biomass and litter accumulation that reduces species richness and
biodiversity through altering plant community dynamics (Foster and Gross 1998, Collins and
Calabrese 2012).
In these communities, litter accumulation if not managed can result in generational effects in
plant community organization by favoring previously established, or tall lived species (Peco et
al. 2012, Loydi et al. 2013). This generational effect can be attributed to accumulation of litter in
excess amounts (~ 500 g m-2) that act as a mechanical barrier to limit recruitment and seedling
emergence by changing the physical conditions that are needed for growth by restricting light
quantity, and changing soil moisture (Facelli and Pickett 1991, Loydi et al. 2013). Unfortunately,
many approaches to mine reclamation still use non-native or exotic species that will provide a
cover crop as fast as possible, resulting in a high accumulation of biomass and litter, ultimately
restricting the plant community. When reclaiming ecosystems or disturbed areas at this scale,

47
incorporating specific, well adapted native plants into reclamation can increase the value of the
ecosystem by allowing room for other plants, and potentially improve soil conditions more
quickly than non-native plants through fostering biodiversity (Swab et al. 2017). The new
ecological problem lies within changing the trajectory of previously reclaimed plant
communities dominated by non-desirable, hearty forage species to biodiverse, native plant
communities which we know to often be impeded by the competitive advantages of the
established community (Yahdjian et al. 2017).
This field trial represents a partnership between HVC and the Nlaka’pamux peoples where the
combination of Indigenous knowledge of prescribed burning was paired with contemporary
ecological disturbance theory and western methods to increase diversity within the tailings
storage facility.
Fire can play an integral role in ecosystems by acting as a mechanism to sustain structure and
diversity in plant communities (Moritz et al. 2014). The ecology of fire works primarily by
affecting and ultimately increasing the availability of resources such as light, while aiding in
nutrient cycling and increased nitrogen availability (Swanson et al. 2011). Additionally, fire acts
as a disturbance to remove accumulated plant litter which can favor the establishment of new
species through various abiotic and biotic ecosystem changes such as: increased solar radiation,
and allowing a period of reduced competition (Brockway et al. 2002, Scheintaub et al. 2009).
Prescribed fire can ultimately modify relationships among species and change dominance in the
plant community due to species specific responses (Ghermandi et al. 2004, Collins and Calabrese
2012, Augustine et al. 2014).
Specifically, the context in which prescribed burning has been used as a mechanism to aid in the
reclamation of disturbed communities on mine lands represents a significant knowledge gap
within existing scientific literature. The purpose of this research was to determine the relative
effect that prescribed burning plays on a twenty-five-year-old historically reclaimed plant
community. Specifically, I examined the ability of prescribed burning as an ecosystem
reclamation tool to shift the ecosystem trajectory away from a non-desirable plant community
towards a native plant community resulting in increased biodiversity.

48

METHODS
Study Site
In May of 2019, a total of twelve prescribed fires were conducted at Highland Valley
Copper (HVC; UTM Z10;638846E, 5594478N, Figure 3.1) within the southern interior of
British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. The history of the Historic Highmont Tailings storage facility
represents twenty-five years of reclamation work. Notable reclamation efforts include a series of
seeding trials in 2008 (35kg/ha) with hearty, non-desirable species, and the application of
biosolids, treated municipal sewage, to assist establishment of a vegetative cover to the noncapped tailings material (Figure 3.2B). Biosolids were provided by Metro Vancouver and applied
in 2006 (200dt/ha).
The study site is located at an approximate elevation of 1500 m within the Montane Spruce
Msxk2 biogeoclimatic zone (Government of British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1991). The
Montane Spruce zone is characterized by cold winters and moderately short, warm summers.

49
The mean annual temperature is 3-4.5 °C and mean annual precipitation ranges from 380 – 900
mm (BC Climate Explorer 2021).

The prescribed burns were conducted at the Highmont Tailings facility (UTM Z10; 647608E;
5588930N), a twenty-five-year-old, historic tailings storage facility that has been reclaimed to a
grassland dominated primarily by agronomic and non-desirable C3 grass species such as: Elymus
trachycaulus, Agropyron spp., Elymus lanceolatus, Thinopyrum intermedium & Bromus inermis.
Additional species include a very low abundance of C3 non-leguminous forbs (Achillea
millefolium & Sisymbrium altissimum). These forb species, even though considered native, are
common to reclamation projects due to their positive response to poorly developed, well drained
soils and overall heartiness.

Figure 3.1. Field study site located at Highmont Tailings, within Highland Valley Copper
Mine, British Columbia, Canada.

50

A)

B)

Figure 3.2. A) Aerial photo of the Historic Highmont Tailings dry stack storage at
Highland Valley Copper, April 2019. B) Current vegetative cover during peak
growing season at Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, August 2019.

Experimental Design
The experiment was established, and treatments were applied in late May of 2019. A total
of twelve plots (20 x 20 m) were arranged in a complete randomized block design spaced a meter
apart on each side. A single fire disturbance was applied to each plot which received a
combination of amendments to distinguish four treatment types. Amendments included
application of woody debris (W), seeding with native forb, legume, and grass species (S) (Table
3-1.), and tree planting (P). Resulting in a total of four treatments replicated three times per

51
treatment: Burn (W+S+P), Burn (S+P), Burn (B), and control (no amendments or burning)
(Figure 3.3). Outside consultants operationally added the treatment ‘Burn (W+S+P)’ but for the
purposes of this study, this treatment was omitted from the analysis as the application of woody
debris did not meet the scope or objectives of our study. Additionally, due to operational
challenges in getting on site, preburn vegetation and biomass data was unable to be collected
prior to burning on certain plots.

Figure 3.3. Overview of experimental design located at the Historic Highmont Tailings
facility at Highland Valley Copper.

Amendments
Native grass, forb, and legume seeding occurred after the prescribed burn at a density of
20 kg/ha using a broadcast seeding method (Table 3-1). All seeds were acquired from a
commercial source, see Appendix C for germination test results. Aspen (Populus tremuloides)
and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) were planted post burn at a density of 5000 stems per

52
hectare (sph). Plant and tree species were selected based on environmental data that would suit
the selected species.
Common Name

Scientific Name

Functional
Group

Succession

1

Western Yarrow

Achillea millefolium

Native Forb

Early

2

Lupinus arcticus

Native Legume

Early

Festuca saximontana

Native Grass

Early

4

Arctic Lupine
Rocky Mountain
Fescue
Idaho Fescue

Festuca idahoensis

Native Grass

Late

5

Junegrass

Koeleria macrantha

Native Grass

Early-Mid

6

Sandbergs Bluegrass

#

3

Poa secunda
Native Grass
Early
Pseudoroegneria
7
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Native Grass
Late
spicata
Table 3-1. List of native plant species included in the operational seed mix, indicating
successional status and plant functional group.

Fire Treatment
An Indigenous fire crew was contracted to carry out the prescribed burning. A single
point fire on each plot was initially attempted to allow the fire to carry naturally with the wind.
Due to the time of year, high elevation, high ground moisture levels, and greenness of vegetation
at the time of burning, the fire did not carry naturally. To conduct the prescribed burn, the fire
crew walked the entirety of the plots with a Tiger Torch™ (Model No. 95-B) and removed all
above ground biomass and litter (Figure 3.4).

53

A)

B)

C)

Figure 3.4. A) Plant community present at Highland Valley Copper, Highmont Tailings site prior
to burning. B) Post prescribed burning with a propane Tiger Torch™ (Model No. 95-B). C) Plant
community one month after burning.

Flame temperature was recorded within each plot using self-constructed pyrometers utilizing
Omegalaq™ temperature sensitive paints ranging from 107 °C to 510 °C. The temperature
sensitive paints were applied at gradations of approximately 30 °C and painted on pieces of tin
that were placed at the center of each plot (Figure 3.5). Due to lack of ignition on site and thus

54
lack of natural fire movement, the temperature pyrometers were ineffective and did not capture
data reliable for estimating flame temperature.

107 °C 135

163

191

218

246

302

316

343

371

399

427

454

482

510 °C

A)

B)
Figure 3.5. Omegalaq™ temperature sensitive paints applied at gradations of approximately 30 °C used to
quantify fire temperature. A) Omegalaq™ paints from lowest to highest temperature. B) Example of paint
change resulting from heat exposure in a lab setting.

Vegetation Assessment & Harvesting
Vegetation measurements were collected within each plot prior to burning and prior to
final harvest (15 months postburn), using absolute canopy cover estimation within a 1 m by 1 m
quadrat. Additionally, above-ground biomass and litter were collected within a smaller, 0.5 m by
0.5 m sub-quadrat to quantify the above ground net primary productivity (ANPP). A total of
eight quadrats were analyzed per plot, with biomass and litter only being harvested in four of the
eight quadrats. Each plot was selected randomly prior to arriving at the field by use of a random
direction and position from the plot centroid. To better understand plant community dynamics,
richness was calculated as the number of species present within each quadrat, evenness and
dominance were calculated respectively using the Shannon-Weiner index which accounts for
richness and evenness, and the Simpson index which is sensitive to dominance (Morris et al.
2014).
Postburn sampling occurred during peak growing season during early August to allow for
maximum biomass growth. Plant biomass samples were harvested as close to the soil surface as
possible and separated by species. Litter was collected after ANPP was collected by scraping

55
dead material off the soil surface. All plants were oven-dried for approximately 48h at 65 °C and
weighed.
Due to mine site access issues, preburn data is missing for treatment ‘Burn (S+P)’ as the mining
partner had begun completing the prescribed burning prior to our arrival.

Soil Sampling, Elemental Analysis & pH
A total of nine random soil samples were extracted at varying time intervals (preburn,
immediate post-burn, six months post-burn and fifteen months post-burn). Soil samples were
extracted using a stainless-steel soil sampling probe with a core diameter of 2 cm. Only the top
15 cm of the soil profile was extracted for analysis. Soils were analyzed at TRU for total nitrogen
(TN), total carbon (TC), C:N ratio, and pH using a Thermo Scientific FlashSmart™ Elemental
Analyzer and a Fisherbrand™ accumet™ AB150 benchtop pH meter.
Soil preparation for elemental analysis included air drying within a Yamato™ drying oven
(model DKN812) for 48 hours at 65°C to remove any moisture. After drying, approximately 1015mg of soil was weighed and placed into small tin capsules for placement into the elemental
analyzer auto-sampling wheel. A total of three technical replicates were taken from each soil
sample to ensure quality of analysis. In addition to examining each technical replicate against
one another, Organic Analytical Standards (OAS) of known nitrogen and carbon values provided
by Thermo Scientific™ were analyzed to ensure accurate estimation of elemental analysis.
Soil pH was measured in an aqueous matrix using a 2:1 water to soil ratio (Carter and Gregorich
2007). Air-dried soil was mixed and shaken with deionized water for one minute and then placed
in a centrifuge and run at 4000rpm for five minutes. A Fisherbrand™ accumet™ AB150
benchtop pH meter was then calibrated with a pH 4, 7, 10 solution and used for analysis.

Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses and figures were produced using R for Statistical Computing (R
Core Team 2021). In all cases, significance was defined by p < 0.05. Data were analyzed using
mixed model of analysis of variance using the ‘lmer’ function from the package “lme4”. For all

56
analyses completed, the random effect was the plot from which the measurements were
performed. Fixed effects for all models were extracted through running an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) on the selected model. Post hoc analysis was done by completing pairwise
comparisons and the p-values were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) corrections
(Benjamini and Hochberg 1995).
All linear mixed effects models used were first checked to meet the assumptions of normally
distributed residuals, and homogeneity of variance. Transformations of the data paired with nonparametric methods were used when data did not meet the above assumptions.
Plant cover data from each sampling quadrat was analyzed by examining Shannon-diversity and
Simpson-diversity indices that were calculated using the ‘vegan’ package in R for statistical
computing. Species richness was calculated as the number of unique species per quadrat.
Shannon diversity, Simpson’s index and species richness was analyzed comparatively between
disturbance treatments and timing using linear mixed effect modeling.
A permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) analyzing Bray-Curtis
dissimilarity was used to assess community-level divergence between treatments and timing.
This index is bound between zero and one, with zero indicating complete similarity in relative
abundance of all species, while one indicates that no species are shared between the samples.
The ‘adonis’ function in the ‘vegan’ package in R was used to complete this analysis. Species
assemblages were normalized first using the Hellinger method. Bray-Curtis dissimilarity
distances were then extracted in R to produce a boxplot to display dissimilarities between factors
and examine post-hoc pairwise comparisons. To determine what features were driving change in
the community I utilized random forest machine learning with the ‘randomForest’ package in R.
To examine the relationship between burning, litter biomass and alpha diversity, the relationship
was plotted. Richness, Shannon-diversity, and Simpson-diversity were analyzed but only
Shannon-Diversity was plotted for visual representation as all diversity metrics represented
approximately the same relationship.
Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) and litter was collected fifteen-months-postburn
and analyzed by treatment, and functional group against the control treatments using linear

57
mixed effect modeling. ANPP that was analyzed by functional group did not meet the
assumptions for normality in some cases so data transformation using square root was applied.
Soil data was analyzed using a FlashSmart™ Elemental Analyzer that returns total
concentrations for various major elements. Total carbon, nitrogen, and carbon to nitrogen (C:N)
ratio were analyzed comparatively between disturbance treatments, timing from pre disturbance
to post disturbance using linear mixed effect modeling. Assumptions for running linear mixed
effect models for each elemental concentration along with C:N ratio were validated, and no data
transformations were needed.

RESULTS
Species Richness, Evenness and Diversity
Examining the effect of burn treatments on alpha diversity metrics resulted in significant
effects within species richness and Shannon-diversity (Table 3-2.). Comparisons of burn
treatments by post-hoc comparison resulted in significant differences between species richness
(F = 4.77, p.adj = <0.01) and Shannon diversity (F = 3.40 , p.adj = <0.05), within the ‘Burn’
treatment, indicating increased diversity fifteen months after treatments were applied (Figure
3.6). The significance of these results indicate that addition of other amendments (seeding + tree
planting) did not aid in increasing diversity.

58

Table 3-2. ANOVA to determine the significance of burn treatment and timing effect on
richness, Shannon-Diversity and Simpson-Index (1-D).
Model:

Species Richness = Burn Treatment + Quadrat ID (Error)

Effect

Burn Treatment
Model:

Sum-of-squares

Mean squares

df

F-Value

p

21

10.50

2

4.77

<0.01

Shannon-Diversity = Burn Treatment + Quadrat ID (Error)

Effect

Burn Treatment
Model:

Sum-of-squares

Mean squares

df

F-Value

p

1.33

0.66

2

3.40

<0.05

Simpson-Diversity = Burn Treatment + Quadrat ID (Error)

Effect

Burn Treatment

Sum-of-squares

Mean squares

df

F-Value

p

0.27

0.13

2

2.32

0.10

59

Figure 3.6. A) Species Richness, B) Shannon-Diversity, C) Simpson-Index (1-D) as an effect of
burning treatments (n control = 24, n Burn = 24, n Burn(S+P) = 24). Pairwise comparisons were
conducted within each group and were compared to the control and adjusted with BH
corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01. Non-significant values were not plotted. Burn (S+P)
treatment was seeded and planted with trees and Burn treatment was only burned.

Plant Community Analysis
The response of the plant community to fire treatment and timing was further
investigated with a permutational multivariate analysis of variance which revealed that
community structure based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities was significantly different between
plots (p<0.001, Table 3-3).
Generally, fire treatment and timing appear to have resulted in a significant shift in the
community structure. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the ‘Burn’ treatment, along with ‘Burn
(S + P)’ when compared to the control plots, resulted in significantly greater Bray-Curtis

60
dissimilarity distance such that less species are shared between plots (p<0.001, Figure 3.7. ,
Table 3-3). Plant community response to timing based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities was also
found to be significant (p<0.001, Figure 3.7., Table 3-3).

Table 3-3. PERMANOVA testing community structure based on the effect of burn treatment
(control, Burn, Burn (S+P)) and timing (preburn and 15-month postburn) for plots located on
Highmont Tailings, HVC. NB perms: 999
Source of Variation

df

F

p

Burn Treatment
Timing
Burn Treatment*Timing
Residuals
Total

3
1
2
122
128

3.37
5.62
0.32

0.001
0.001
0.797

61

Figure 3.7. Extracted Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity distance plotted by A) Burn Treatment (fifteen
months postburn) and B) Timing for field plots located on HVC, Highmont Tailings. Burn (S+P)
treatment was seeded and planted with trees and Burn treatment was only burned. 15 Months
Postburn pools all treatment plots excluding the control and Preburn pools all treatments.

62
Random Forest
Random forest (RF) modelling was completed to evaluate variable importance to
determine what was driving the observed change across alpha and beta diversity measures in
timing and treatment factors. I plotted variable importance as mean decrease Gini for the top four
variables of importance (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.8. Random forest generated variables of importance driving beta diversity
response due to factors: A) Timing and B) Burn Treatment for field plots located at HVC,
Highmont Tailings.

63

Each variable of importance was then analyzed for significance using linear mixed effect
modelling among treatment and timing factors to validate variable importance (Figure 3.9). Only
variables of significance within modelling were included in figures.

Figure 3.9. Percent cover of litter across factors of A) Timing (n preburn = 33, n fifteen months
postburn = 95) and B) Burn Treatment (n control = 42, n Burn = 36, n Burn(S+P) = 24), and
percent cover of Achillea millefolium across factors of C) Timing and D) Burn Treatment.
Pairwise comparisons for Burn Treatment factor were compared to a base mean from ‘control’

64
and adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p <0.05, ‘**’ p <0.01 , ‘***’ p<0.001, ‘****’ p<0.0001.
Burn (S+P) treatment was seeded and planted with trees and Burn treatment was only burned.

Significant differences in percent cover between preburn and fifteen months post burn were
found with respect to both litter cover (Figure 3.9A., F = 34.03 , p <0.0001 ) and Achillea
millefolium (Figure 3.9C., F = 13.203, p = <0.001). Total cover of litter decreased fifteen months
after burning while total cover of Achillea millefolium increased indicating a positive trend
toward forb response to fire. Response to ‘Burn treatment’ trends were less apparent such that
only a significant difference was found with respect to cover of litter between control and ‘Burn
(S+P)’ (Figure 3.9B), F = 3.25 p.adj = <0.05). Percent cover of Achillea millefolium approached
significance but was not statistically significant given α = 0.05 (Figure 3.9D), F = 2.74, p =
0.07).

Litter & Diversity Relationship
To examine the relationship between diversity and litter, linear regression was conducted
examining Shannon-diversity, Simpsons Index, and species richness against litter biomass. There
was a significant but weak negative relationship among all diversity measures against litter
biomass (Shannon-Diversity = 0.96 – 0.005 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.12 p = 0.02, SimpsonIndex = 0.51 – 0.003 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.11 , p = 0.03, Species richness = 4.16 – 0.02
x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.13, p = 0.02). Only Shannon-Diversity was plotted for visual
representation (Figure 3.10). This relationship reiterates the negative effect that litter appears to
place on the plant community, as it appears to limit diversity.

65

Figure 3.10. Relationship between Shannon-Diversity and litter mass fifteen months
postburn. Shannon-Diversity = 0.96 – 0.005 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.12 p = 0.02.

Disturbance, Productivity and Litter
Burn treatment did not result in any significant effects on ANPP (F = 1.09, p > 0.05,
Table 3-4., Figure 3.11A.) suggesting that burning did not result in any significant change of
productivity to the plant community. However, burn treatment resulted in significantly reduced
litter (F = 8.34, p < 0.01 Table 3-4.).

66

Table 3-4. ANOVA to determine significance of burn treatments on ANPP and Litter for field
plots located at HVC, Highmont Tailings facility.
Model:

ANPP = Burn Treatment (Fixed) + Quadrat (Error)

Effect
Burn Treatment
Model:

Sum-of-squares
7381

Mean squares
3690

df
2

F-Value
1.09

p
>0.05

Litter = Burn Treatment (Fixed) + Quadrat (Error)

Effect
Burn Treatment

Sum-of-squares
16630

Mean squares
8314

df
2

F-Value
8.34

p
<0.01

Pairwise comparisons show a significant decrease in litter from the control to the ‘Burn’
treatment fifteen months postburn (p < 0.05, p.adj = <0.001, Figure 3.11B) These results suggest
that burning alone or paired with additional amendments does not appear to significantly
increase or decrease ANPP, but significantly decrease litter (Figure 3.11). The importance of
these results suggests that burning aids to removing litter, while not reducing the productivity of
the plant community which may have implications in enhancing diversity on site as seen in the
results above.

67

Figure 3.11. A) Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) and B) Litter by burn treatment,
fifteen months postburn (n control = 12, n Burn = 12, n Burn(S+P) = 12). Pairwise comparisons
analyzed treatment against control and p-values were adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05,
‘**’ p < 0.01, ‘***’p < 0.001. Non-significant values were not plotted. Burn (S+P) treatment was
seeded and planted with trees and Burn treatment was only burned.

Plant productivity was further analyzed by examining ANPP across burn treatments by plant
functional groups of forbs, non-desirable grass, and native grasses at fifteen months postburn.
Burn treatment resulted in a significant effect when analyzing forb ANPP (F = 3.54 , p < 0.05,
Table 3-5, Figure 3.12). Productivity within the other categories did not result in any significant
change. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons between burn treatments resulted in a significant increase

68
of forb ANPP within the ‘Burn’ only treatment ( p <0.05, p.adj = 0.03). This result suggests that
burning without the addition of amendments favors the productivity of forb production (Figure
3.12).

Table 3-5. ANOVA to determine significance of burn treatments on ANPP of Forbs, Nondesirable grass, and Native grass for field plots located at HVC, Highmont Tailings facility.
Model:

Forb Biomass = Burn Treatment (Fixed) + Quadrat (Error)

Effect
Burn Treatment
Model:

Sum-of-squares
12.223

Mean squares
6.11

df
2

F-Value
3.54

p
<0.05

Non-Desirable Grass Biomass = Burn Treatment (Fixed) + Quadrat
(Error)

Effect
Burn Treatment
Model:

Sum-of-squares
6533

Mean squares
3266

df
2

F-Value
0.8

p
>0.05

Native Grass Biomass = Burn Treatment (Fixed) + Quadrat (Error)

Effect
Burn Treatment

Sum-of-squares
9.97

Mean squares
4.98

df
2

F-Value
0.69

p
>0.05

69

Figure 3.12. Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) of A) Forbs, B) Non-desirable
grasses, and C) Native grasses by burn treatment, fifteen months postburn (n control = 12, n
Burn = 12, n Burn (S+P) = 12). All pairwise comparisons were analyzed, and p-values were
adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01, ‘***’p < 0.001. Non-significant values
were not plotted. Burn (S+P) treatment was seeded and planted with trees and Burn treatment
was only burned.

70
Soil Elemental Analysis & pH Response to Burning
Linear mixed effect modeling resulted in no significant differences in concentrations of
total nitrogen, carbon, or C:N ratio due to treatment effects. Timing as a factor, however, resulted
in a significant effect across all soil elements (Table 3-6.). Pairwise comparisons between
preburn to fifteen months postburn resulted in almost a twofold increase in total N (F = 17.73 , p
< 0.01) , total C, (F = 23.35, p < 0.01) and a significant increase in C:N ratio (F = 26.68, p<0.01)
within the top fifteen cm of soil (Table 3-6, Figure 3.13).

Table 3-6. ANOVA to determine the significance of burn treatment on total N, total C, and C:N
ratio.
Model:
Effect
Timing

Total N = Timing (Fixed) + Plot (Error)
Sum-of-squares
0.09

Model:
Effect
Timing

df
1

F-Value
17.73

p
<0.01

Total C = Timing (Fixed) + Plot (Error)
Sum-of-squares
14.05

Model:
Effect
Timing

Mean squares
0.09

Mean squares
14.05

df
1

F-Value
23.35

p
<0.01

C:N = Timing (Fixed) + Plot (Error)
Sum-of-squares
2.84

Mean squares
2.84

df
1

F-Value
26.68

p
<0.01

71

Figure 3.13. Comparisons of A) Total nitrogen, B) Total Carbon, and C) carbon to nitrogen
(C:N) ratio (n preburn = 6, n fifteen months postburn = 9) for soils extracted from Highland
Valley Copper, Highmont Tailings prior to burning and fifteen months after burning was
completed. * = 0.05, ** = 0.01, *** = 0.001
These results indicate that soil nitrogen and carbon levels increased over time likely as a result
of prescribed burning, generally.
pH values did not significantly differ due to burn treatment (Table 3-7).

72
Table 3-7. ANOVA to determine the significance of burn treatment pH
Model:
Effect
Treatment

pH = Burn Treatment (Fixed) + Plot (Error)
Sum-of-squares
0.08

Mean squares
0.04

df
2

F-Value
1.89

p
0.17

Figure 3.14. pH of the top 15cm of soil extracted fifteen months postburn from burn treatments
(n = 9 for each group) located at Highland Valley Copper, Highmont Tailings. Burn (S+P)
treatment was seeded and planted with trees and Burn treatment was only burned.

73

DISCUSSION
Impacts of Disturbance and Amendments on Diversity
Prescribed burning resulted in a significant but limited effect on the species diversity and
richness. Species richness and Shannon-diversity when compared to the unburned controls was
greater interestingly only within the ‘Burn’ treatment (Figure 3.6A). An increase in species
diversity and richness following prescribed fire is a similar result in many studies (Sparks et al.
1998, Durigan et al. 2020). Additionally, I found that the amendments of seeding and tree
planting after burning did not appear to have any significant effects. I suggest two ways to
explain why this occurred. As no species losses occurred after prescribed burning, and no
significant effects in richness or Shannon diversity were noted with the seeding amendment, the
pre-fire composition appears to play a major factor in determining post-fire composition,
especially with herbaceous covers that responded quickly to disturbance (Sparks et al. 1998). It is
likely that due to the continued dominance and competitive exclusion by the heavy herbaceous
cover of rhizomatous grasses, that native seedling establishment was limited and the increase in
richness I observed was a direct result of species that were already part of the seedbank which
comprised mostly forbs that were able to respond quickly and positively to disturbance (Figure
3.12A) (Kirkman et al. 2014, Swab et al. 2017). Secondly, as it was observed in Figure 3.4C, the
non-desirable grass species responded extremely fast to the burning disturbance which likely
resulted in the native seeded species being shaded out very soon after disturbance. The
observation in richness and increase in forb cover that I observed was likely that of shade
tolerant and tall lived species that were already part of the plant community and able to grow
away from the shaded conditions that the seedlings failed to (Gommers et al. 2013). Evidence of
this extreme competition for light and shade-avoidance response within the high-density
monoculture could likely be observed in future studies comparing shoot to root development as
more carbon is allocated towards shoot development to avoid being shaded out, in addition to
exploring photosynthetically active radiation rates over time since disturbance (Gommers et al.
2013).

74
Litter Dynamics in the Plant Community
Impacts of prescribed burning resulted in changes to community-level divergence due to
treatment and timing effects (Figure 3.7). Exploration of the factors predicted by random forest
modelling confirmed that this divergence was largely due to changes resulting from the
consumption of litter and increased cover of forbs (Achillea millefolium) after burning (Figure
3.9). Furthermore, litter was a significant factor in limiting plant diversity on site as a negative
relationship between richness, evenness and diversity were all observed with respect to
increasing levels of litter (Figure 3.10). In grassland plant communities, this result has been
observed in many studies (Maret and Wilson 2005, Lamb 2008, Collins and Calabrese 2012).
The significance of this result points towards the use of prescribed burning to reduce the amount
of litter that provides barriers to seedling emergence as litter tends to alter the physical
environment through intercepting light and shading seeds and seedlings, ultimately depressing
germination and establishment (Facelli and Pickett 1991, Maret and Wilson 2005). In
consideration of reducing litter, and providing the best changes for seedlings to germinate, Wang
et al. (2021) found that fall burning resulted in greater impacts to community composition and
ultimately a longer time to recover to preburn conditions and greater length of time with exposed
soil surface. As limited success was found within the application of spring burning, burning in
the fall may present the best opportunity to decrease levels of litter, while offering a prolonged
period of reduced competition for new seedlings to establish.

Disturbance, Productivity and Litter
The effects of prescribed burning on total ANPP, and ANPP by functional group were
consistent with findings from Scheintaub et al. (2009) and Augustine et al. (2010) within a semiarid grassland which found neutral effects of burning on total ANPP and ANPP of perennial
grasses, and increased ANPP of forbs (Figure 3.11). The neutral response in ANPP I observed
may be a result of timing of burn as early season burns allow for more opportunity to recover
through the rest of the growing season (Wang et al. 2021). As the goal is to transition this
grassland away from a non-desirable and towards a native grassland community these results
support the use of burning to at the least not enhance productivity of non-desirable grasses while
opening a window for new species to enter. In examining Figure 3.11B., only fifteen months

75
after burning litter levels are already beginning to approach levels of pre-disturbance shown by
the control. These results continue to show just how productive this system is and how narrow
the window is for new species to enter successfully and fight for space before being choked out
by the established community.

Soil Elemental Analysis & pH Response to Fire
Elemental analysis results of the experiment indicate an overall increase in total nitrogen,
carbon, and C:N ratio from preburn to fifteen-months post-burn. No significant differences
between burn treatment types were observed as all treatments received the same burn treatment.
The increase in total N and C into the system is an influence of the addition of water-soluble
components of ash that become available for plants through burning (Pathak et al. 2017). In low
intensity burning, N losses to the atmosphere are minimal when temperatures are below 200 °C,
while biological and non-biological processes after burning are able to transform organic N into
plant available inorganic N (NH4 , NO3) (Knicker 2007, Alcañiz et al. 2018). A similar result
found by Rau et al. (2008) resulted in soil inorganic N (NH4 , NO3) significantly increasing postburn, and remaining elevated for extended periods upwards of two years post-burn. These results
are significant as they suggest that fire-driven nutrient losses were not observed, and clearly did
not limit plant productivity as no decreases in ANPP were detected (Figure 3.11A). As NH4
concentrations are commonly correlated with biomass consumption (Covington and Sackett
1992), prescribed burning in this instance has played a significant role in cycling nutrients from
aboveground biomass and litter that would otherwise take years to breakdown (Brockway et al.
2002).

76

CONCLUSION
The results of this study show that this grassland ecosystem, in its present state of
dominance by undesirable, hearty, highly productive grasses, is likely to return to a preburn state
without continued disturbance of some kind. This is evidenced by the lack of establishment of
native plants and the continued dominance of non-desirable grasses almost two years later. I
found that burning did significantly increase diversity on site to some extent. The effects of
burning to increase diversity appear though to be halted sharply due to other factors. I were able
to expound on one significant factor: litter accumulation, that when paired with the high
productivity on site, contributes significantly to restricting plant diversity within this community.
The limited success I observed from the use of prescribed burning to enhance biodiversity may
be a result of time of burning being conducted in the spring when moisture levels were high. To
optimize the window for seeded species to enhance diversity on site, fall burning should be
prescribed in addition to selecting species that are early colonizers and shade tolerant to best
compete with the established plant community. Further research should consider the application
of annual burning or an annual disturbance treatment in addition to timing of disturbance to
examine the effects on ANPP of non-desirable species and the colonization rates of introduced
species.

77

Literature Cited:
Adiansyah JS, Rosano M, Vink S, Keir G. 2015. A framework for a sustainable approach to mine
tailings management: Disposal strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 108:1050–1062.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.139.
Alcañiz M, Outeiro L, Francos M, Úbeda X. 2018. Effects of prescribed fires on soil properties: A
review. Science of the Total Environment. 613–614:944–957.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.144.
Augustine DJ, Brewer P, Blumenthal DM, Derner JD, von Fischer JC. 2014. Prescribed fire, soil
inorganic nitrogen dynamics, and plant responses in a semiarid grassland. Journal of Arid
Environments. 104:59–66http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.022.
Bates JD, Svejcar T, Miller RF, Angell RA. 2006. The effects of precipitation timing on sagebrush
steppe vegetation. Journal of Arid Environments. 64(4):670–697.
doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.026.
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate : A practical and powerful
approach to multiple testing Yoav Benjamini ; Yosef Hochberg Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society . Series B ( Methodological ) , Vol . 57 , No . 1 . ( 1995 ), pp . Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society Series B (Methodological). 57(1):289–300.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101.
Brockway DG, Gatewood RG, Paris RB. 2002. Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass
prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing seasons.
Environmental Management. 65(2):135–152.
Brothers TS. 1990. Surface-mine grasslands. Geographical Review. 80(3):209–225.
Carter M., Gregorich EG. 2007. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. 2nd ed.
Collins SL, Calabrese LB. 2012. Effects of fire, grazing and topographic variation on vegetation
structure in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science. 23(3):563–575. doi:10.1111/j.16541103.2011.01369.x.

78
Covington WW, Sackett SS. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed burning in
ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management. 54(1–4):175–191. doi:10.1016/03781127(92)90011-W.
Durigan G, Pilon NAL, Abreu RCR, Hoffmann WA, Martins M, Fiorillo BF, Antunes AZ, Carmignotto
AP, Maravalhas JB, Vieira J, et al. 2020. No net loss of species diversity after prescribed fires in
the Brazilian savanna. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 3(February):1–15.
doi:10.3389/ffgc.2020.00013.
Facelli JM, Pickett STA. 1991. Plant litter: Its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. The
Botanical Review. 57(1):1–32. doi:10.1007/BF02858763.
Foster BL, Gross KL. 1998. Species richness in a successional grassland: Effects of nitrogen enrichment
and plant litter. Ecology. 79(8):2593–2602. doi:10.1890/00129658(1998)079[2593:SRIASG]2.0.CO;2.
Gasch C, Huzurbazar S, Stahl P. 2014. Measuring soil disturbance effects and assessing soil restoration
success by examining distributions of soil properties. Applied Soil Ecology. 76:102–111.
doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.12.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.12.012.
Ghermandi L, Guthmann N, Bran D. 2004. Early post-fire succession in northwestern Patagonia
grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02238.x.
Gommers CMM, Visser EJW, Onge KRS, Voesenek LACJ, Pierik R. 2013. Shade tolerance: When
growing tall is not an option. Trends in Plant Science. 18(2):65–71.
doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2012.09.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.09.008.
Kirkman KP, Collins SL, Smith MD, Knapp AK, Burkepile DE, Burns CE, Fynn RWS, Hagenah N,
Koerner SE, Matchett KJ, et al. 2014. Responses to fire differ between South African and North
American grassland communities. Journal of Vegetation Science. 25(3):793–804.
doi:10.1111/jvs.12130.
Knicker H. 2007. How does fire affect the nature and stability of soil organic nitrogen and carbon? A
review. Biogeochemistry. 85(1):91–118. doi:10.1007/s10533-007-9104-4.
Kossoff D, Dubbin WE, Alfredsson M, Edwards SJ, Macklin MG, Hudson-Edwards KA. 2014. Mine
tailings dams: Characteristics, failure, environmental impacts, and remediation. Applied

79
Geochemistry. 51:229–245. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.09.010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.09.010.
Lamb EG. 2008. Direct and indirect control of grassland community structure by litter, resources, and
biomass. Ecology. 89(1):216–225. doi:10.1890/07-0393.1.
Lottermoser B. 2011. Mine Wastes. Mine Wastes. 7(6). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-05133-7.
Loydi A, Eckstein RL, Otte A, Donath TW. 2013. Effects of litter on seedling establishment in natural
and semi-natural grasslands: A meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology. 101(2):454–464.
doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12033.
Maret MP, Wilson M V. 2005. Fire and litter effects on seedling establishment in western Oregon
upland prairies. Restoration Ecology. 13(3):562–568. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00071.x.
Mendez MO, Maier RM. 2008. Phytostabilization of mine tailings in arid and semiarid environments An emerging remediation technology. Environmental Health Perspectives. 116(3):278–283.
doi:10.1289/ehp.10608.
Moritz MA, Batllori E, Bradstock RA, Gill AM, Handmer J, Hessburg PF, Leonard J, McCaffrey S,
Odion DC, Schoennagel T, et al. 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature. 515(7525):58–
66. doi:10.1038/nature13946.
Morris EK, Caruso T, Buscot F, Fischer M, Hancock C, Maier TS, Meiners T, Müller C, Obermaier E,
Prati D, et al. 2014. Choosing and using diversity indices: Insights for ecological applications
from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecology and Evolution. 4(18):3514–3524.
doi:10.1002/ece3.1155.
Pathak K, Nath AJ, Sileshi GW, Lal R, Das AK. 2017. Annual burning enhances biomass production
and nutrient cycling in degraded imperata grasslands. Land Degradation and Development.
28(5):1763–1771. doi:10.1002/ldr.2707.
Peco B, Carmona CP, de Pablos I, Azcárate FM. 2012. Effects of grazing abandonment on functional
and taxonomic diversity of Mediterranean grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.
152:27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.02.009.

80
Rau BM, Chambers JC, Blank RR, Johnson DW. 2008. Prescribed fire, soil, and plants: Burn effects and
interactions in the central Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61(2):169–181.
doi:10.2111/07-037.1.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In R Foundation for
Statistical Computing (4.0.3). https://www.r-project.org/
Sample D, Barlow S. 2013. What is soil restoration? Where can SR be used?
http://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/426/426-123/426-123_pdf.pdf.
Scheintaub MR, Derner JD, Kelly EF, Knapp AK. 2009. Response of the shortgrass steppe plant
community to fire. Journal of Arid Environments. 73(12):1136–1143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.05.011.
Sheoran V, Sheoran A, Poonia P. 2010. Soil reclamation of abandoned mine land by revegetation: A
review. International Journal of Soil, Sediment and Water. 3(2):13.
Sparks JC, Masters RE, Engle DM, Palmer MW, Bukenhofer GA. 1998. Effects of late growing-season
and late dormant-season prescribed fire on herbaceous vegetation in restored pine-grassland
communities. Journal of Vegetation Science. 9(1):133–142. doi:10.2307/3237231.
Swab RM, Lorenz N, Byrd S, Dick R. 2017. Native vegetation in reclamation: Improving habitat and
ecosystem function through using prairie species in mine land reclamation. Ecological
Engineering. 108:525–536. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.05.012.
Swanson ME, Franklin JF, Beschta RL, Crisafulli CM, DellaSala DA, Hutto RL, Lindenmayer DB,
Swanson FJ. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: Early-successional ecosystems on
forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2):117–125. doi:10.1890/090157.
Tordoff GM, Baker AJM, Willis AJ. 2000. Current approaches to the revegetation and reclamation of
metalliferous mine wastes. Chemosphere. 41(1–2):219–228. doi:10.1016/S0045-6535(99)004142.
Turner SR, Pearce B, Rokich DP, Dunn RR, Merritt DJ, Majer JD, Dixon KW. 2006. Influence of
polymer seed coatings, soil raking, and time of sowing on seedling performance in post-mining
restoration. Restoration Ecology. 14(2):267–277. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00129.x.

81
Venkateswarlu K, Nirola R, Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Naidu R, Megharaj M. 2016. Abandoned
metalliferous mines: ecological impacts and potential approaches for reclamation. Reviews in
Environmental Science and Biotechnology. 15(2):327–354. doi:10.1007/s11157-016-9398-6.
Wang M, Beck R, Willms W, Hao X, Broadbent T. 2021. Vegetation response of a dry mixed prairie to
a single spring or fall burn. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 79:13–21.
doi:10.1016/j.rama.2021.07.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2021.07.002.
Yahdjian L, Tognetti PM, Chaneton EJ. 2017. Plant functional composition affects soil processes in
novel successional grasslands. Functional Ecology. 31(9):1813–1823. doi:10.1111/13652435.12885.

82

Chapter 4 : TESTING PRESCRIBED BURNING INTENSITY IN A
MESOCOSM AS A METHOD TO SHIFT A NON-DESIREABLE GRASS
COMMUNITY TO A NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY

ABSTRACT
Changes in plant diversity, abundance and soil nutrients following experimental
disturbance were studied in experimental mesocosm units extracted from a twenty-five-year-old
historically reclaimed grassland located at Highland Valley Copper mine in British Columbia
(B.C.), Canada. Experimental mesocosm units were dominated by non desirable grass species
such as Elymus trachycaulus, Elymus lanceolatus, Thinopyrum intermedium and Bromus
inermis. The disturbance treatment was fire, represented by three fire intensities (low, moderate,
high), replicated six times per treatment, and treatments were modified by the weight of dried
litter applied to each mesocosm unit, along with the time each grass turf was burned. Clipping
was added as an additional disturbance treatment to compare between fire disturbance treatments
and undisturbed control plots. One day after the disturbance treatment, mesocosm units were
seeded in order to examine effectiveness of plant establishment post-disturbance. Disturbance
treatments resulted in higher overall alpha diversity, richness, evenness, beta diversity, and soil
nitrogen and carbon. Plant community changes included colonization of seeded native forbs,
grasses, and legumes in response to disturbance. Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP)
was slightly reduced within the clip and light burning disturbance treatments. Litter reduced
plant diversity and ANPP, indicating that litter was a major factor in plant community dynamics.
These results suggest a positive plant community response towards the use of disturbance to
increase diversity of semi-arid grasslands, and to aid in shifting plant communities to preferred
states.

83

INTRODUCTION
Fire is a natural ecological disturbance, but due to its heterogenous and environmentally
specific behavior the effects on plant communities based on fire severity has not been well
quantified (Duff et al. 2017). Field studies on fires often arise from opportunistic sampling and
analysis where fires have occurred due to natural and anthropogenic agents rather than planned
ignition. Such studies result in limitations with quantifying fire effects by limiting the project
scope to postburn conditions often where no data has been collected prior to burning (McCarley
et al. 2017). A mesocosm, microcosm or excised community aims to mimic a natural system
while extracting ecologically relevant information and providing a simplified model for complex
disturbances within particular ecosystems (Fraser and Keddy 1997). This study examines a
mesocosm based approach to examine how fire disturbance can be used as a method to shift a
non-desirable plant community to a native plant community. The experimental design focused on
a gap in literature surrounding plant community, and soil nutrient response to fire severity
effects.
Fire is a principal ecological process that influences the evolution of numerous plant species
while acting as a mechanism to sustain structure, diversity and productivity of fire dependent
ecosystems (Moritz et al. 2014). In grasslands, plant communities are primarily influenced by a
combination of biotic and abiotic factors including fire, grazing, and climate (Collins and
Calabrese 2012). The ecology of fire on the landscape works primarily by affecting and
ultimately increasing the availability of resources such as light while resulting in increased
nitrogen availability and nutrient cycling (Swanson et al. 2011). This in turn can modify
relationships among species and change dominance in a community due to species specific
responses to changes in these variables (Ghermandi et al. 2004, Collins and Calabrese 2012,
Augustine et al. 2014).
Patterns of plant diversity are largely dependent on interactions between frequencies of
disturbance and above-ground biomass of the vegetation (Pekin et al. 2012). In highly productive
sites, biomass and litter accumulation that is left in a state without disturbance or some form of
reduction may ultimately restrict above ground net primary productivity (ANPP), species
richness, and favor tall lived species reducing functional diversity in life form (Foster and Gross,

84
Peco et al. 2012). Reduction in plant diversity can largely be attributed to biomass accumulation
in the understory sequestering limiting nutrients and restricting light availability to the
environment below, resulting in competitive exclusion from tall-lived species (Grime 1973,
Pekin et al. 2012). North American oak stands that were frequently burned resulted in nearly
double the species richness of less frequently burned stands suggesting fire prevented
competitive exclusion of grasses and forbs by taller lived species such as trees and shrubs
(Peterson and Reich 2008). Similarly with highly productive grasslands a disturbance such as fire
is an important determinant in increasing richness of grasses and forbs for the community
through reducing competitive exclusion, evidenced by a > 50% reduction in grass species
richness in the absence of disturbance (Fynn et al. 2004).
As species richness of vegetation tends to peak within a few years following fire, life form
diversity can change significantly over time with respect to disturbance return intervals. Species
with shorter juvenile periods able to mature and set seed will be favored in higher disturbance
regime areas where obligate seeders might be reduced before maturation (Pekin et al. 2012). Fire
plays a significant role in plant community composition and structuring grassland ecosystems.
Post fire conditions often favor establishment of new species through various abiotic ecosystem
changes such as: decreased soil moisture, removal of accumulated litter and subsequent release
of nutrients immobilized within the dead plant tissue, increased solar radiation to the ground, and
allowing a period of reduced competition (Brockway et al. 2002, Scheintaub et al. 2009, Pekin et
al. 2012).
Beyond plant community responses, fire in semi-arid and arid ecosystems has been shown to
increase the availability of inorganic N in the first post-burn year and extended periods beyond
the fire. This increase in plant available nitrogen can influence regrowth, seedling establishment
of native species, invasion of annual plants, and ultimately site recovery (Rau et al. 2007,
Augustine et al. 2014), extending its use in reclamation of mine spoils where nitrogen is limited.
Despite the ecological benefits and outcomes of prescribed fire, its application within the
reclamation and restoration setting is rarely utilized (McKenna et al. 2019) but its efficacy as a
management tool is rapidly changing and often times is used to manage rangelands and fuel
loads in fire prone ecosystems (Taylor 2003, Penman et al. 2011). Fire managers and ecologists
are utilizing burning in Canadian national parks to reduce fire risk or reintroduce disturbance to

85
an ecosystem for management purposes (Scheintaub et al. 2009, Sutherland 2019). There is a
lack of research however, on how fire intensity on a controlled scale may affect plant and soil
community responses.
The purpose of this research was to determine the relative effect that fire disturbance and fire
intensity plays on a twenty-five-year-old historically reclaimed plant community, and to examine
the ability of a six-species plant mixture, to establish in post-fire conditions. The goal of burning
paired with seeding is proposed as an aid to shift an undesirable plant community dominated by
largely fast growing, non-desirable grass species (Elymus trachycaulus, Bromus inermis, and
Thinopyrum intermedium) to a native plant community more typical of local grasslands. The six
plant species selected for our experiment were Castilleja miniata (common red paintbrush),
Gaillardia aristata. (brown-eyed susan), Festuca campestris (rough fescue), Festuca
saximontana (rocky mountain fescue), Oxytropis campestris (field locoweed) and Lupinus
arcticus (arctic lupine). I chose these species for a number of reasons: (1) To examine functional
group responses to disturbance, (2) They represent common species found within B.C.’s upper
grassland communities, (3) They align with the desired end land use reclamation goal objectives
set out by Teck Highland Valley Copper and Indigenous project partners (Nlaka’pamux nation),
and (4) They are expected to tolerate site conditions including high elevations up to 1500 m and,
neutral to slightly alkaline soils, while also holding characteristics of drought tolerance and ease
of establishment (Dobb and Burton 2012).
A mesocosm experiment may ease difficulty of studying the effects of fire on plant and soil
communities due to the spatially heterogenous behaviour of fires that occur in the wild due to
changing environmental conditions. Ecosystem responses correlated with measures of fire
intensity can more accurately be demonstrated and understood within controlled mesocosm
experiments. The information produced from this study will be of most interest to aid future
researchers and resource managers when making decisions on how to utilize fire intensity as a
predictive tool in reclamation and restoration activities.
A mesocosm experiment was designed to answer three questions: (1) What role does fire
intensity play in the vegetative community with respect to increasing biodiversity and
establishment of native species? (2) Does fire intensity effect soil nutrients such as total N, and

86
total C? and (3) How does fire intensity effect the establishment of early and late successional
grass, forb, and legume species?

METHODS
Term Clarification
Regarding the quantification and the characterization of post-fire effects, there exists a
lack of concrete terminology surrounding the terms fire intensity and fire severity (Keeley 2009).
For the purposes of my research and future research, the most important aspects of prescribed
burning come down to replicability. This research was conducted under the understanding that
fire intensity translates into fire severity such that I can quantify and modify variables
surrounding intensity to result in scaled severity.
Fire intensity for the purpose of this research is restricted to a measure of energy output by fire.
Fire intensity was modified to be a function of residence time (heating duration), plant dryness,
and organic matter available for combustion (fuel) (Neary et al. 1999). It should be noted that
other factors including pre-fire species composition, topography, substrate, and climate will have
some effect on how fire intensity translates into fire severity (Keeley 2009).
Fire severity for the purpose of this research represents a quantification of how fire intensity
affected the ecosystem. More specifically, fire intensity was used to match the empirical
observations of fire severity that centres on the loss of aboveground biomass and ash
characteristics. The table below represents a fire severity matrix adapted and modified from
Keeley (2009) and Dobb and Burton (2012).

87
Table 4-1. Fire severity matrix related to above ground biomass consumption adapted from
Keeley (2009) and Dobb and Burton (2012).
Fire Severity
Low Severity

Description
Surface litter scorched, charred, consumed

Moderate Severity

All understory plants charred or consumed, all
litter consumed, light colored ash
All understory plants consumed, all litter
consumed, larger quantity of light-colored ash

High Severity

Mesocosm Unit Extraction Site
Mesocosm experimental units were extracted in August of 2019, from the Historic
Highmont Tailings Storage Facility (TSF), located approximately five kilometers west of Logan
Lake, British Columbia (B.C.) within Highland Valley Copper Mine (HVC; UTM Z10;647739E,
5588766N, elevation 1500m, Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Mesocosm unit extraction site located within Highland Valley Copper Mine,
Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, British Columbia, Canada.

88
Highmont Tailings is located within the Montane Spruce MSxk2 (very dry, cool) biogeoclimatic
zone (Government of British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1991). This location is characterized
by cold winters and moderately short, warm summers. The mean annual temperature is 3 – 4.5°C
and mean annual precipitation ranges from 380 – 900mm (BC Climate Explorer 2021).
The history of the historic Highmont Tailings storage facility represents twenty-five years of
reclamation work. Notable reclamation efforts include a series of seeding trials in 2008 (35kg/ha)
paired with biosolid application (200 dt/ha) to aid in establishing vegetative cover onto
unamended tailings. The selected seeds represent various introduced, long-lived, sod-forming
wheat grasses often utilized for agronomic purposes due to their heartiness and ability to grow in
nutrient limited, and water limited environments.
The plant community in the study area represents a low diversity, patchy landscape that is
primarily composed of a few dominant, and highly productive non-desirable grasses (Elymus
trachycaulus, Agropyron spp., Thinopyrum intermedium & Bromus inermis) that make up the
majority of the plant community. Additional species include a very low abundance of nonleguminous forbs (Achillea millefolium & Sisymbrium altissimum). These species even though
considered native, are common to reclamation projects due to their positive response to poorly
developed, well drained soils. The species listed above throughout the paper are listed as nondesirable due to the updated land use plan set out by the mine company in partnership with the
Nlaka’pamux community. This updated land use plan places more focus on increasing
biodiversity and shifting the site trajectory towards desired species that represent locally native
bunchgrasses, forbs, and legumes more indicative of an undisturbed grassland for the province.

89

A)

B)

Figure 4.2. A) Aerial photo of the Historic Highmont Tailings dry stack storage
at Highland Valley Copper, April 2019. B) Current vegetative cover during peak
growing season at Highmont Tailings Storage Facility, August 2019.

Experimental Design
The experiment was established in the Summer of 2019 and treatments were applied in
January 2020 and ran for 227 days (approximately seven months). The experimental design was
a randomized complete block design with a single factor (disturbance treatment), with five levels
(control, clip, light burn, moderate burn, heavy burn) and six replicates per level, for a total of
thirty individual experimental mesocosm units. Clipping disturbance treatment was added to
assist in differentiating between fire disturbance response and disturbance response generally.
Each experimental unit was hand-seeded with a custom native seed mix at a rate of 200

90
seeds/spp./mesocosm unit after disturbance treatment (~ 2400 seeds / m2 or ~ 1200 seeds /
mesocosm unit) (Table 4-2). All seeds were purchased from commercial sources. See Appendix
D (Table D-2) for results of germination trial and information about seed source. Treatments
were randomly assigned to each block and mesocosm unit.

Seed Selection, Preparation & Seeding Rate
A total of two native grasses, two native forbs, and two native legumes were selected for
seed application in the mesocosm experiment (Table 4-2). Within each of these three functional
groups an early and mid or late successional species was chosen based on their expected level of
tolerance to site conditions including neutral to slightly alkaline soils, elevation range (1500 m),
drought tolerance, and ease of establishment (Dobb and Burton 2012). The native species also
represent common species found within B.C.’s grassland communities, in addition to aligning
with target species within the end land use goal of the mine.
Prior to the application of the hard coated legume species onto each mesocosm unit, seeds were
scarified using sandpaper and water imbued for five hours (Baskin and Baskin 1998, Kimura and
Islam 2012). All seeds were then placed into an envelope packet along with 25 mg of sand to
help achieve even dispersal when sowing.
Based on the results of the germination trial (see Appendix D, Table D-1 & D-2), the pure live
seed (PLS) rate obtained was approximately (1873 PLS/m2). This seeding rate represents the
upper limit that has been placed approximately at 1400 PLS/m2 (Barr et al. 2017) and 750 – 1500
PLS/m2 for degraded grasslands to optimize richness and diversity (Burton et al. 2006).
Germination data from Castilleja miniata was excluded from the PLS calculation due to lack of
any germination.

91

Table 4-2. List of plant species selected for the mesocosm experiment indicating successional
status and functional group
#
1
2
3
4

Common Name
Common Paintbrush
Brown-eyed Susan
Rough Fescue
Rocky Mountain
Fescue

5

Field Locoweed

6

Arctic Lupine

Scientific Name
Castilleja miniata
Gaillardia aristata
Festuca campestris
Festuca
saximontana
Oxytropis
campestris
Lupinus arcticus

Type
Native Forb
Native Forb
Native Grass

Succession
Late
Early-Mid
Mid-Late

Native Grass

Early

Native
Legume
Native
Legume

Early-Mid
Early

Mesocosms
The indoor mesocosms used to test the effects of fire intensity on the plant community
were extracted as intact ‘grass-turf’ units and placed into 102-liter HDX Tough Storage Bins™
(Figure 4.3). All mesocosm units were then transported back to Thompson Rivers University
(TRU) research greenhouse. The experiment was conducted under controlled greenhouse
conditions operated by Argus™ control systems (natural and artificial light: day/night 18h/6h;
temperature: day/night 21°C; humidity: 50-60%).
The bins and turf sizes were selected to obtain an approximate area of 0.25 m2 (Bin dimensions:
L0.56 m by W0.46 m by H0.38 m) for vegetation analysis purposes and to ensure each grass turf
contained intact root systems and soil profile. The soil profile within each mesocosm contained
an A-horizon layer ranging from approximately 2 - 3 cm, with the subsequent layer representing
fine textured mine-tailings. Each mesocosm container had a total of fifteen 1 cm diameter
drainage holes, in addition to landscape fabric that was placed on the bottom to stop the release
of fine textured tailings during watering events.
The mesocosms were free draining to allow for natural soil moisture profiles and watered as
needed. Plants were monitored daily for signs of stress and wilting within the greenhouse. The
typical watering schedule included approximately three times a week during winter months and

92
every second day during summer months. Increased watering in summer was essential due to the
extreme observed temperatures within the research greenhouse.

Figure 4.3. Extracted Mesocosm grass turf from Highmont Tailings
Storage Facility, Highland Valley Copper Mine, British Columbia,
Canada.

93
Fire Treatment
Fire intensity treatments were modified through amending the weight of dried litter
applied to each mesocosm unit, along with modifying the time each grass turf was burned with a
cast iron head, propane, Tiger Torch™ (Model No. 95-B)(Figure 4.4). The litter that was applied
to each mesocosm was first quantified by taking dry weight, and then reapplied ensuring there
were no seed heads on any applied litter to mitigate the introduction of additional seeds. The cast
iron head was held at the same height (30 cm) above each unit and a ‘S’ type motion was used
for torching each unit. Gas pressure and flame intensity remained constant throughout the
process and was regulated using the controls on the Tiger Torch™.
A)

C)

B)

D)

E)

Figure 4.4. Mesocosm units and their respective treatments; A) Control, B) Clip (2cm height), C)
High Intensity (200g litter applied, 20 s burned), D) Moderate Intensity (150g litter applied, 15 s
burned), E) Low Intensity (50g litter applied, 10 s burned). All mesocosm units were seeded at
the same time, and at the same rate after treatment was applied.
Flame temperature was recorded within each mesocosm unit using self-constructed pyrometers
utilizing Omegalaq™ temperature sensitive paints ranging from 107 °C to 510 °C. The
temperature sensitive paints were applied at gradations of approximately 30 °C and painted on

94
pieces of tin that were placed at the center of each mesocosm unit. Each pyrometer was analyzed
after the burn treatment and results collected by a single observer. Temperature sensitive paints
were determined to reach their specified target when a sharp drip was observed indicating
melting, in addition to the loss of the original color and a shift from matte to glossy finish after
treatment (Figure 4.5).

107 °C 135

163

191

218

246

302

316

343

371

399

427

454

482

510 °C

A)

C)

B)

D)
Figure 4.5. Omegalaq™ temperature sensitive paints applied at gradations of approximately 30 °C used to
quantify fire temperature. A) Omegalaq™ paints from lowest to highest temperature. B) High severity
burn analyzed at approximately 343 °C. C) Moderate severity burn analyzed at approximately 343 °C. D)
Low severity burn analyzed at approximately 302 °C.

Vegetation Assessment & Harvesting
Vegetation measurements were collected within each mesocosm unit prior to burning,
using absolute canopy cover estimation on the entire grass turf, approximating a 0.5 m by 0.5 m
quadrat. Additionally, above-ground biomass and litter were collected from each mesocosm unit
besides the control to quantify the above ground net primary productivity (ANPP) as a baseline
for productivity. Mesocosms were then allowed to grow for seven months, after which aboveground biomass and litter was collected again. The plants were harvested as close to the soil
surface as possible and separated by species to quantify ANPP. Litter was collected after ANPP

95
was collected by scraping dead material off the soil surface. All plants were oven-dried for
approximately 48h at 65 °C and weighed to a constant weight to determine dry matter biomass
separated by above ground biomass and litter.
Vegetation community assessment via absolute canopy cover estimation was completed predisturbance, one-month post, three-months post, six-months post and prior to final harvest
(seven-months post). To better understand the plant community dynamics, evenness and
dominance was calculated respectively using the Shannon-Weiner index which accounts for
richness and evenness, and the Simpson index which analyzes dominance. Species richness was
considered the number of species present in each grass turf at the time of sampling.

Soil Sampling, Elemental Analysis & pH
A single soil sample was taken at random from each mesocosm unit at all time intervals
specified in the above paragraph. Soil samples were extracted using a stainless-steel soil
sampling probe with a core diameter of 2 cm. Each core extracted the entire soil profile of the
mesocosm unit and was separated into the top 10 cm and bottom 10 cm for analysis (Figure 4.6).
Soils were analyzed for total nitrogen (TN), total carbon (TC), C:N ratio, and pH using a Thermo
Scientific FlashSmart™ Elemental Analyzer and a Fisherbrand™ accumet™ AB150 benchtop
pH meter.
Soil preparation for elemental analysis included air drying within a Yamato™ drying oven
(model DKN812) for 48 hours at 65°C to remove any moisture. After drying, approximately 1015 mg of soil was weighed and placed into small tin capsules for placement into the elemental
analyzer auto-sampling wheel. A total of three technical replicates were taken from each soil
sample to ensure quality of analysis, resulting in a total of 868 individual samples run. In
addition to examining each technical replicate against one another, Organic Analytical Standards
(OAS) with known nitrogen and carbon values provided by Thermo Scientific™ were analyzed
to ensure accurate estimation of elemental analysis.

96
Soil pH was measured in an aqueous matrix using a 2:1 water to soil ratio (Carter and Gregorich
2007). Air-dried soil was mixed and shaken with deionized water for one minute and then placed
in a centrifuge and run at 4000rpm for five minutes. A Fisherbrand™ accumet™ AB150
benchtop pH meter was then calibrated with a pH 4, 7, 10 solution and used for analysis.

Bottom 10 cm

Top 10 cm

Figure 4.6. An intact soil core extracted from a mesocosm unit. The top 10 cm and bottom 10 cm was
separated and used for soil analyses.

Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses and figures were produced using R for Statistical Computing (R
Core Team 2021). In all cases, significance was defined by p < 0.05. Data were analyzed using
mixed model of analysis of variance using the ‘lmer’ function from the package “lme4”. For all
analyses completed, the random effect was the specific mesocosm from which the measurements
were performed. Fixed effects for all models were extracted through running an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) on the selected model. Post hoc analysis was done by completing pairwise
comparisons and the p-values were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) corrections
(Benjamini and Hochberg 1995).
All linear mixed effects models used were first checked to meet the assumptions of normally
distributed residuals, and homogeneity of variance. Transformations of the data paired with nonparametric methods were used when data did not meet the above assumptions.

97
Plant cover data from each mesocosm unit was first analyzed descriptively by examining species
richness, Shannon-Weiner and Simpson diversity indices using the ‘vegan’ package in R for
statistical computing. Shannon diversity, Simpson’s index and species richness was analyzed
comparatively between disturbance treatments and timing using linear mixed effect modeling.
Data normalization was completed on ANPP data to meet the assumptions of normality. Fifteen
months postburn and pre-disturbance ANPP data for each mesocosm was normalized against its
paired control ANPP weight at fifteen months postburn.
To examine the relationship between burning, litter biomass and ANPP, the relationship was
plotted as outlined by Scheintaub et al. (2009). Only data from burn treatments was plotted
against litter to examine the relationship of ANPP from pre-disturbance to project completion at
7-months postburn. To examine the relationship between burning, litter biomass and alpha
diversity, the relationships were analyzed. Alpha diversity metrics were calculated using
Richness, Shannon-diversity, and Simpson-diversity. All metrics were analyzed but only
Shannon-Diversity was plotted for visual representation as all diversity metrics represented the
same relationship.
A permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) analyzing Bray-Curtis
dissimilarity was used to assess community-level divergence between treatments and timing.
This index is bound between zero and one, with zero indicating complete similarity in relative
abundance of all species, while one indicates that no species are shared between the samples.
The ‘adonis’ function in the ‘vegan’ package in R was used to complete this analysis. Species
assemblages were normalized first using the Hellinger method. Bray-Curtis dissimilarity
distances were then extracted in R to produce a boxplot to display dissimilarities between factors
and examine post hoc comparisons.
Soil data was analyzed using a FlashSmart™ Elemental Analyzer that returns total
concentrations for various major elements. Total carbon, nitrogen, and carbon to nitrogen (C:N)
ratio were analyzed comparatively between disturbance treatments, timing from pre disturbance
to post disturbance and level of soil depth using linear mixed effect modeling. Assumptions for
running linear mixed effect models for each elemental concentration along with C:N ratio were
validated, and no data transformations were needed.

98

RESULTS
Disturbance and Alpha Diversity
Disturbance significantly impacted all alpha diversity metrics with respect to analyzing
the factor of disturbance treatment alone (Figure 4.7, A-C). The interactive effect between
disturbance treatment and timing resulted in only significant differences being found within
Shannon diversity and species richness (Figure 4.7, D-F).
Comparisons of burn treatments when examining Shannon and Simpsons diversity to the control
resulted in a significant increase in diversity within the clip, light, and moderate burn severity
treatments (Figure 4.7A, B). A similar, but stronger trend was observed such that species
richness increased significantly across all disturbance treatments when compared to the control
(Figure 4.7C). The significance of these results indicates that light to moderate disturbance
treatment generally resulted in an increase in diversity, whereas heavy burning did not
significantly increase diversity.

99

Figure 4.7. Shannon-Diversity, Simpson Index, and Species Richness as an effect of burning treatments (n
= 6 for all treatments) at seven months postburn (A-C), and analysis of interaction effects between timing
and burn treatments (D-F). All Pairwise comparisons were conducted in A-C, and pairwise comparisons to
control were conducted in D-F. p values were adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01,
‘***’ p < 0.001.
The interactions between timing and disturbance treatment were significant when examining
Shannon diversity and species richness (Figure 4.7D, F). Maximum Shannon diversity and
species richness was observed and significantly different within the three-month postburn period
in all disturbance treatments when compared to the control. This result indicates an increasing
trend in diversity up until the third month, followed by a marked decreasing trend in Shannon
diversity and species richness nearing the end of the experiment. In all disturbance treatments
over time with respect to Shannon diversity and species richness, a humpback typed trend is
observed such that diversity is maximized in the middle of the experiment in terms of timing and
burning treatment.

100
Functional Group Analysis & Community Species Assemblage
Plant percent cover increased slightly due to the factor of timing across disturbance
treatments (Table 4-3). Only models resulting in significant findings were posted in Table 4-3.
See Appendix E (Table E-1.) for a plant inventory by functional group and classification of
species as per this study. Cover of non-desirable grass, timing between pre-disturbance and
seven-month post burn resulted in a significant effect (F = 8.3862, p <0.001). This was also the
case when analyzing cover of native grasses and ruderal herbs (F = 5.1158, p<0.05, F = 13.479,
p<0.001) respectively. Pairwise comparisons within treatment groups were completed to
determine the significant differences between treatments (Figure 4.8).
Pairwise comparisons between disturbance treatments and timing show greater cover of nondesirable grass from pre-disturbance to seven-month postburn (Figure 4.8). Observationally, as
disturbance level increased (clip – light burn – moderate burn – heavy burn), cover of non
desirable grass also increased. However, only the heavy burn treatment resulted in a significant
increase in non desirable grass cover (p < 0.01, p.adj = < 0.05).
As with native grass species, all disturbance treatments allowed for an increase in cover from
pre-disturbance to postburn as no native species were present prior to disturbance. Post hoc
pairwise analysis resulted in only the moderate burn treatment significantly increasing cover (p <
0.001, p.adj = 0.01).
Ruderal herb species significantly increased in cover post disturbance treatment but was only
found to be significant within the light burning treatment (p < 0.001, p.adj = 0.01). Both forbs
and legumes failed to result in any significant increases from pre-disturbance to seven months
postburn. These results still are significant in the sense that new native species and legumes were
able to colonize post disturbance and increase site diversity and functional plant group diversity.

101

Table 4-3. ANOVA to determine significance of disturbance treatment and timing effect on
percent cover of plant functional groups for mesocosm units.
Model:

% Cover Non-Desirable = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed)
+ Timing (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)

Effect
Disturbance Treatment * Timing
Disturbance Treatment
Timing
Model:

Sum-of-squares
1886.50
303.810
2281.670

Mean squares
471.630
75.950
2281.670

df
4
4
1

F-Value
1.733
0.279
8.386

p
0.174
0.888
<0.001

% Cover Native Grass = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed) +
Timing (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)

Effect
Disturbance Treatment * Timing
Disturbance Treatment
Timing
Model:

Sum-of-squares
143.830
143.830
201.670

Mean squares
35.958
35.958
201.667

df
4
4
1

F-Value
0.912
0.912
5.115

p
0.464
0.464
<0.05

% Cover Ruderal Herbs = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed)
+ Timing (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)

Effect
Disturbance Treatment * Timing
Disturbance Treatment
Timing

Sum-of-squares
454.170
461.560
770.420

Mean squares
113.540
115.390
770.420

df
4
4
1

F-Value
1.986
2.0188
13.479

p
0.127
0.122
<0.001

102

Figure 4.8. Percent cover of five plant functional groups across disturbance treatment and timing
for pre-disturbance and 7-months postburn in a mesocosm fire experiment (n = 6 within each
group, +/- 1 SE). Pairwise comparisons within treatment groups were completed and adjusted
with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, non-significant values were not plotted.
Examining plant community assemblage by species comparing pre-disturbance to seven months
postburn, it is evident that postburn conditions allowed for a significant increase in ruderal herb
species, along with seeded native grasses, legumes, and forbs as these species were not observed
in the community prior to disturbance (Figure 4.9). Two notable non desirable grass species:
Elymus trachycaulus and Bromus inermis resulted in an increase in cover from pre-disturbance
(40 & 3 %) to postburn (44 & 6%) respectively. This increase in cover is confirmed in ANPP
results shown below (Figure 4.9).

103

Figure 4.9. Mean percent plant cover by species across all experimental mesocosm units by
timing of pre-disturbance to project completion at seven-months post burn. Control plots were
not considered in the postburn category here (n Pre-disturbance = 30, n 7 Months postburn = 24).

Aboveground Net Primary Productivity
The interaction term (between disturbance and timing) in our model showed a significant
effect on normalized ANPP (F = 11.3225, p <0.001, Table 4-4). Additionally, disturbance
treatment alone represented no significant effect, while timing (pre-disturbance & 7-months
postburn) show a slight but non-significant effect (F = 3.9811, p = 0.09, Table 4-4). Pairwise
comparisons within treatment groups across treatment and timing were completed to determine
where the significant differences were (Figure 4.10).

104

Table 4-4. ANOVA to determine significance of disturbance treatment and timing on normalized
ANPP for mesocosm units.
Model:

Normalized ANPP = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed) *
Timing (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)

Effect

Disturbance Treatment * Timing
Disturbance Treatment
Timing

Sum-ofsquares
0.621
0.050
0.054

Mean
squares
0.207
0.016
0.054

df

F-Value

p

3
3
1

11.322
0.926
2.981

<0.001
0.445
0.099

Figure 4.10. Aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) normalized against its paired
control by timing in pre-disturbance and 7-month postburn across disturbance treatments
from each mesocosm unit (n = 6 for each group). Pairwise comparisons were completed
within treatments between pre-disturbance, and final post burn conditions and p-values were
adjusted with BH corrections.

105
Pairwise comparisons between disturbance treatments and timing show significantly greater
normalized ANPP from pre-disturbance to seven-month postburn conditions when the
experiment was completed (Figure 4.10). Significant differences were found within the heavy
burn treatment (n = 6, p = <0.01 p.adj = <0.001). Clipping treatment was found to be
significantly different prior to p-value adjustment (n = 6, p = <0.05, p.adj = 0.08) and approaches
significance after adjustment. These results suggest that light disturbance such as clipping and
light burning decreases ANPP whereas increasing intensity of disturbance results in increased
ANPP (Figure 4.10).

Fire Disturbance, ANPP & Litter Relationship
There was no significant relationship between litter mass and ANPP in pre-disturbance (
ANPP Normalized = 0.58 – 0.032 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = -0.02, p = > 0.05) and a
significantly negative relationship after burning within the 7-month postburn period (ANPP
Normalized = 0.76 – 0.46 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.15 , p = < 0.05) suggesting a negative
effect of litter on ANPP. Pre-disturbance metrics also represent a larger amount of variance with
litter appearing to limit ANPP while disturbance generally appears to increase ANPP (Figure
4.11).

106

Figure 4.11. Relationship between normalized aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP)
and litter mass for a seven-month mesocosm experiment. Pre-disturbance: ANPP Normalized
= 0.58 – 0.032 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = -0.02, p = > 0.05, 7-month postburn: ANPP
Normalized = 0.76 – 0.46 x litter mass, Adjusted R2 = 0.15 , p = < 0.05.

Disturbance, Diversity & Litter Relationship
To examine the relationship between diversity and litter, linear regression was conducted
examining Shannon-diversity, Simpsons Index, and species richness against litter biomass. There
was a significant negative relationship between among all diversity measures against litter
biomass from pre-disturbance to project completion at seven-months postburn (Shannondiversity, Adjusted R2 = 0.11, p = 0.007, Simpson-index, Adjusted R2 = 0.12, p = 0.03, Species
richness, Adjusted R2 = 0.13, p = 0.03). Only Shannon-diversity was plotted for visual
representation (Figure 4.12). This relationship reiterates the negative effect of litter on the plant
community, as it appears to limit plant diversity.

107

Figure 4.12. Relationship between Shannon-Diversity and normalized litter mass for a sevenmonth mesocosm experiment (Adjusted R2 = 0.11, p = 0.007) .
Plant Community Analysis
The response of the plant community to disturbance treatment and timing was further
investigated with a permutational multivariate analysis of variance which revealed that
community structure based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities was significantly different between
plots (p<0.001, Table 4-5).
Generally, all disturbance treatments and timing appear to have resulted in a significant shift in
the community structure (p<0.001, Figure 4.13. , Table 4-5). Plant community response to timing
based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarities was also found to be significant (p<0.001, Figure 4.13,
Table 4-5).

108
Table 4-5. PERMANOVA testing community structure based on the effect of disturbance
treatment (clip, control, and all burn treatments lumped together) and timing (pre-disturbance,
and all postburn timings lumped together) for mesocosm turves extracted from Highmont
Tailings, Highland Valley Copper mine.
Source of Variation

df

F

p

Disturbance Treatment
Timing
Disturbance Treatment*Timing
Residuals
Total

4
4
16
125
149

9.07
9.26
0.88

0.001
0.001
0.727

109

Figure 4.13. Extracted Bray-Curtis Dissimilarity distance plotted by A) Disturbance
Treatment (seven-months postburn, light, moderate, and heavy refer to burn intensity) and B)
Timing for field mesocosm units extracted from HVC, Highmont Tailings. 7 Months
postburn pools all treatment plots excluding the control and Pre-disturbance pools all
treatments.

Soil Elemental Analysis
Soil level and timing (pre disturbance vs. 7-month post disturbance) significantly affected
nitrogen and carbon concentrations, where as the interaction of disturbance treatment and timing
were found to significantly effect the C:N ratio (Table 4-6). Direct comparisons of major
elements by soil level depth were not directly of interest and therefore not pursued. Pairwise
comparison post-hoc analysis was completed to determine the pairings of significant differences.

Table 4-6. ANOVA to determine significance of disturbance treatment, timing, and level on total nitrogen concentrations for
mesocosm units.
Model:
Effect
Disturbance Treatment
Level
Timing
Model:
Effect
Disturbance Treatment
Level
Timing
Model:
Effect
Disturbance Treatment *
Timing
Disturbance Treatment
Level
Timing

Total N = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed) + Timing (Fixed) + Level (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)
Sum-of-squares
0.101
1.170
0.237

Mean squares
0.025
1.170
0.237

df
4
1
1

F-Value
1.434
66.072
13.399

p
0.252
<0.001
<0.001

Total C = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed) + Timing (Fixed) + Level (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)
Sum-of-squares
7.957
125.353
22.460

Mean squares
1.989
125.353
22.460

df
4
1
1

F-Value
1.049
66.141
11.850

p
0.401
<0.001
<0.001

C:N = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed) * Timing (Fixed) + Level (Fixed) + Turf ID (Error)
Sum-of-squares

Mean squares

df

F-Value

p

109.632

27.407

4

4.190

<0.01

9.739
14.023
3.512

2.434
14.023
3.511

4
1
1

0.372
2.144
0.537

0.826
0.146
0.465

Pairwise comparisons between disturbance treatments and timing show significantly greater
nitrogen concentrations from pre-disturbance to seven-month postburn conditions when the
experiment was completed (Figure 4.14). Pairwise comparisons highlighted light (n = 6, p =
<0.01 p.adj = 0.02) and heavy burn (n = 6, p = <0.01, p.adj = 0.02) treatments as increasing total
nitrogen content within the top 10 cm of the soil. A similar trend was observed upon analyzing
total carbon, such that significantly greater carbon was observed within light (n = 6, p = <0.01,
p.adj = 0.01) and heavy (n = 6, p = <0.01, p.adj = 0.01) post burn conditions when compared to
pre-disturbance. Comparisons of C:N ratio were found to be significantly different prior to pvalue adjustment within the clipping treatment (n = 6, p = 0.01, p.adj = 0.06) and approaches
significance after adjustment but fails to meet α 0.05.
Generally, concentrations of total nitrogen and total carbon were found to be greater within the
top 10cm of soil after disturbance treatment. Additionally, the C:N ratio remained generally
stable likely due to both nitrogen and carbon increasing together.

112

Figure 4.14. Total nitrogen, carbon, and carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio separated by top 10 cm and bottom 10
cm of soil sample extracted from each mesocosm unit (n = 6 for each group). Pairwise comparisons were
completed within treatments between pre-disturbance, and final post burn conditions and p-values were
adjusted using BH corrections. * = 0.05, ** = 0.01, *** = 0.001, **** = 0.0001. (Bot & Top 10 cm = bottom
or top 10 cm of sample extracted from a 30 cm soil core pulled from each mesocosm unit).
Pairwise comparisons across total nitrogen, carbon, and C:N ratio for bottom 10 cm of soil were
all insignificant with no apparent trend or affect occurring across treatment types.

pH
A total of three pairwise comparisons were made within each treatment for a total of
fifteen tests. Each comparison examined median pH across pre-disturbance, three-months
postburn, and seven-months postburn (Table 4-7). The range of average soil pH in predisturbance conditions was 6.56 – 7.16, while the median range was 6.55 – 7.09. After fire
disturbance, the light burning treatment resulted in a significant average and median pH to a

113
value of 7.25 for both values (p<0.01, Figure 4.15). Both heavy and clip disturbance also resulted
in significant differences in median pH in comparing three-month postburn to seven-month
postburn. Although significantly different, the median pH change appears to be an increasing
trend within the control, regardless of any disturbance treatment (Figure 4.15). Interestingly, the
light burn treatment had a decrease in pH from 7.16 at pre-disturbance to 6.79 three-month post
burn, in addition to the heavy burn treatment which resulted in a small pH decline from 6.83 to
6.71.

Table 4-7. ANOVA to determine significance of pH across disturbance treatment and timing
within mesocosm units
Model:

pH = Disturbance Treatment (Fixed) * Timing (Fixed) + Turf
ID (Error)

Effect
Disturbance
Treatment
Timing
Disturbance
Treatment * Timing

Sum-of-squares

Mean squares

df

F-Value

p

0.398

0.099

4

2.006

1.24E-01

2.175

1.087

2

21.907

1.47E-07

0.776

0.097

8

1.954

7.22E-02

114

Figure 4.15. pH of the top 10 cm of soil extracted from each mesocosm unit (n = 6 for each
group). Pairwise comparisons were completed within treatments between pre-disturbance,
three-months postburn and 7-months postburn and p-values were adjusted using BH
corrections. * = 0.05, ** = 0.01, *** = 0.001, **** = 0.0001.

DISCUSSION
Impacts of Disturbance on Diversity and the Plant Community
Disturbance treatment regardless of severity resulted in an increase in species richness,
evenness, and diversity when compared to the control. Light burn, moderate burn, and clipping
disturbance all appear to be synonymous with one another with respect to relative increases in
diversity metrics while heavy burning resulted in the lowest response across treatments.
Furthermore, it appears as though the light and moderate fire disturbance were not fully

115
distinguishable from one another such that a similar response was observed within each
treatment.
The moderate and light burn response found within this experiment slightly coincides with the
generally accepted “hump-backed-model” (HMB), which states the greatest diversity occurs in
the moderate or middle range of a physical gradient of plant productivity or disturbance (Grime
1973, Fraser et al. 2015). A similar result was also found within the field in more recent work by
Ashouri et al. (2016) and Heydari et al. (2017) whereby maximum values for richness
corresponded to sites with moderate stress that were characterized from high to low based on fire
disturbance and grazing.
In examining disturbance treatment with timing effect together we can better understand how the
plant community responded. A slightly hump-backed distribution between disturbance treatment
and time was observed. Initially, when disturbance treatment is applied, and the community was
observed one to three months post burning, diversity metrics approach their maximum values,
while diversity decreased and stabilized near the end of the experiment at seven months. This
initial increase and maximum value in diversity and evenness was likely due to highly favorable
conditions post-burn which aided in the germination of the seeded native species. However, as
the experiment proceeded, the dominant non-desirable rhizomatous grasses began to expand both
above and belowground, depositing a layer of litter on the ground surface and thereby
outcompeting new seedlings for space, and resources (Facelli and Pickett 1991, Scheintaub et al.
2009). A similar response was found by Kirkman et al. (2014) where dominance of a
rhizomatous grass was thought to be a factor facilitating community dominance after prescribed
burning. This relationship was further exemplified within the heavy disturbance treatment as
diversity measures across treatments were lowest (Figure 4.7 D), but ANPP after disturbance
was highest (Figure 4.10).
Early successional species that were able to withstand competition, contributed significantly
more to the increase in biodiversity over time. Although competition was not directly measured,
observationally this result aligns with the post-fire stages and benefits of postfire conditions. The
first stage represents a ‘race to occupy the area’ when there is little competition for resources
(light, water, space, etc.). Secondly, as growth continues resources become progressively more

116
important, and represents ‘the effort to maintain space’(Ghermandi et al. 2004, Scheintaub et al.
2009).
The impacts of disturbance treatment and timing were also analyzed for community-level
divergence. Both timing and disturbance treatment resulted in significant changes to the plant
community. This divergence is likely due to the similar composition of well-established non
desirable grass species across experimental units, being contrasted by the later established native
species that responded differently to disturbance treatments and other environmental gradients
(Matthews and Spyreas 2010). When examining divergence over the experimental period with
respect to timing, we find significant community change away from the pre-disturbance
community likely due to the increased number of new native species over time from seeding and
new ruderal species appearing due to fire disturbance (Figure 4.8 & 4.13B).

Total Cover and Plant Functional Group Response to Disturbance
All disturbance treatments resulted in a differential response among the plants treated
within each mesocosm experimental unit. In all experimental units the former species found in
pre-disturbance observations were observed seven-months post disturbance (Figure 4.9). The
community shift seven-months post was still largely dominated by non-desirable grasses but also
resulted in the establishment of opportunistic ruderal herbs and native seeded species that took
advantage of the secondary succession. This response is consistent with an appearance of a
‘fugitive’ community after disturbances which colonize early from the seedbank, which in this
case was represented by ruderal herb species (Ghermandi et al. 2004).
All plant functional groups studied responded to disturbance such that cover increased after
disturbance (Figure 4.8). This increase is to be expected in consideration of the native seeded
species but more importantly we should consider how disturbance affected the non-desirable
grasses. The increase in cover for non-desirable grass species remains consistent with similar
studies that have shown burning to increase cover in tall grass species (Towne and Owensby
1984, Peterson and Reich 2008, Kirkman et al. 2014). This increase in cover of non-desirable
grass species is likely a factor of rhizomatous spread. This spread and increase in cover then can
facilitate continued dominance and exclusion of other species due to their strong ability to
increase in size via vegetative spread, while occupying the canopy increases its competitive

117
advantage to native bunchgrass species (Peterson and Reich 2008, Gough et al. 2012). Augustine
et al. (2014) and Collins and Calabrese (2012) examined burning in a semiarid grassland and
tallgrass prairie and found that C3 grass production was reduced in burn treatments, while C4
grass production remained unaffected by burn treatments and increased in tallgrass prairies. The
results from this study, however, indicate that burning treatments did not significantly reduce the
cover or ANPP of non-desirable grass species occupying the mine site.
Seeded native grasses and forbs performed the best with respect to establishment on postfire
conditions and should continue to change the trajectory of the site towards more native species
colonization through natural reseeding events. A small change in forb cover was observed in
burn treatments, however a larger response was observed within the clipping treatment. I cannot
say for certain that fire disturbance alone results in increased forb cover, due to the significant
increase observed within the clip treatment, however this result remains consistent with other
studies observing forb increases post fire disturbance (Ruthven et al. 2000, Goergen and
Chambers 2009, Scheintaub et al. 2009).

Impacts of Disturbance on Aboveground Net Primary Productivity
The impact of disturbance on ANPP was found to remain negative to neutral with respect
to light disturbance, while productivity appeared to increase as severity increased from moderate
to heavy burning. The light – moderate disturbance fire observation remains consistent with
investigation of productivity effects of fire on Mediterranean type grasslands (Hervey 1949,
Henry et al. 2006) and more recent work completed within a semi-arid shortgrass steppe
(Scheintaub et al. 2009). The net neutral to negative response to productivity may be more of an
effect of timing of the burn with respect to whether the grass species are physiologically active or
dormant. Scheintaub et al. (2009) found that the consumption of live tissue may have negatively
impacted plants more than dormant season fire.
The significant increase in ANPP found within the heavy burn treatment is more consistent with
findings of burning completed in tallgrass prairie by (Briggs and Knapp 1995, Turner et al. 1997)
that found ANPP across burned plots was significantly higher than unburned plots and was
correlated to soil moisture and removal of litter. The relationship of ANPP to litter however was
not found within this study as a very weak relationship was found (Figure 4.10). In a semi-arid

118
environment, this relationship suggests that litter in this case does not inhibit ANPP and perhaps
may even increase water retention by decreasing evaporative loss (Scheintaub et al. 2009). Given
the large variation within the heavy treatment, the relationship is still believed to be net neutral to
negative which remains consistent with other studies.
The general theory that terrestrial ecosystem production is limited by N availability, to a point
where productivity inhibits diversity is supported in this case and reflects the community
response to disturbance we have observed thus far (Potts et al. 2012). The observed increase in
total N (Figure 4.14), only reflects a minor to neutral change in productivity (Figure 4.10), but
increased cover of non-desirable grass species (Figure 4.8) resulting in higher competitive
exclusion to other species through resource competition with greater N uptake, resulting in
shading through increased cover. The plant response to disturbance that resulted in consumption
of litter is more suggestive of a significant contributor to increase site diversity as control
treatments across the board resulted in lower diversity, evenness, richness, and had a lower
species composition.

Litter Dynamics in the Plant Community
Significant interactions were found between the dynamics of plant litter and its effects on
the plant community productivity (ANPP), and diversity. A significant negative relationship was
found between ANPP and litter, such that productivity decreased sharply with higher levels of
litter (Figure 4.11). Additionally, the relationship between diversity and litter was examined and
a similar effect was found such that plant community diversity was maximized when litter was
removed by disturbance (Figure 4.12). This response can be attributed by site productivity
overall, in addition to the species found within the environment that contribute to litter
deposition. Litter alters the physical and chemical environment directly and indirectly through
release of nutrients in breakdown, intercepting light, shading seeds and seedlings, and reducing
soil temperature (Facelli and Pickett 1991, Scheintaub et al. 2009). Rhizomatous spread by the
non-desirable grass species are a significant factor in facilitating continued dominance within the
community and exclusion of other species through competitive exclusion of the resources listed
above (Kirkman et al. 2014). This result remains concurrent with other studies that have found

119
when accumulated litter is not periodically removed by grazing or fire disturbance, productivity,
and plant diversity decline (Anderson 1990, Collins and Calabrese 2012).

Soil Elemental Analysis & pH Response to Fire
Elemental analysis results of the experiment indicate that there was an overall increase in
total nitrogen and carbon across treatments within the top 10 cm of soil while the bottom 10 cm
resulted in no significant change. With respect to the top 10 cm, it appears that disturbance
treatment resulted in a larger total increase of N and C into the system which was likely an
influence of soil nutrient addition by ash from burning. The increase in nitrogen by clipping is
harder to explain however, as a similar study conducted by Marion et al. 1991 found no
significant increases across clipping treatments. Soil nitrogen increases from burning are
however consistent with other studies whereby the availability of soil inorganic N (NH4 , NO3)
was found to increase in response to fire (Marion et al. 1991, Covington and Sackett 1992, Rau
et al. 2008, Augustine et al. 2014). Commonly, NH4 increases are directly correlated with
biomass consumption (Covington and Sackett 1992).
Loss of nutrients through burning also commonly is in question when conducting prescribed
burning. However, the highest temperature achieved during prescribed burning was
approximately 343°C and evidently provided no total nitrogen losses through volatilization.
Nutrient loss through volatilization is largely dependent upon fuel load, efficiency of combustion
and resulting temperature. Major soil nutrients such as N , K and P, become volatile at 200°,
760°, and 774°C respectively (Rau et al. 2007). With respect to the slight decrease in C:N ratio
across disturbance treatments this could be attributed to rapid mineralization and release of the
increased inorganic N, resulting in the slight increased cover of non-desirable grass observed in
previous results and other studies (Figure 4.8) (Enwezor 1976, Fujimaki et al. 2009, Biswas and
Micallef 2019).
Soil pH increased significantly over the course of the experiment as observed within all
treatments. The resultant increase in pH due to fire disturbance is common and has been reported
in both field and laboratory experiments (Ubeda et al. 2005, Scharenbroch et al. 2012). This is
likely the result of increased availability of cations and organic acid denaturation occurring

120
during burning (Ubeda et al. 2005). In this experiment however it appears something else is
occurring to result in increased pH over time regardless of disturbance. Possible explanation of
this could be heavy metal leaching or oxidization of minerals occurring through watering events,
resulting in pH increases as these metals accumulate in the experimental units.

CONCLUSION
The results of this study show diversity enhancements towards shifting the plant
community composition from a non-desirable grass dominated grassland community to a native
grassland. Disturbance by burning or clipping had a significant influence on plant community
response whereby clipping in this case was similar to moderate disturbance burning resulting in
agreement with the “hump-backed-model”. Due to the currently well-established state of the
dominant grasses within the mesocosm units, disturbance paired with seeding is recommended as
a tool to enhance the diversity of the site to aid in shifting the ecosystem towards a native
grassland as new species were only observed in disturbed treatments. Plant community
composition shifted as a result of disturbance. Native species establishment although minimal is
projected to continue to change the trajectory of the mesocosm units over time towards a native
grassland. Further research should consider distinguishing between fire severity effects through
greater detail to disentangle clipping effects from fire disturbance while also implementing a
severe fire treatment. Additionally, watering events and leachate from mesocosm units should be
tracked to examine soil characteristic changes over time with respect to plant response to water
and productivity.

121

Literature Cited:
Adbulhafiz F, Mohammed A, Kayat F, Zakaria S, Hamzah Z, Pamuru R, Gundala P, Reduan M.
2020. Micropropagation of Alocasia longiloba Miq and comparative antioxidant Pproperties
of ethanolic extracts of the field-grown plant, In Vitro Propogated and In Vitro-Derived
Callus.
Ashouri P, Jalili A, Danehkar A, Chahouki MAZ, Hamzeh’ee B. 2016. Is there any support for the
humped-back model in some steppe and semi steppe regions of Iran? Acta Oecologica.
73:61–70. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2016.03.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2016.03.002.
Augustine DJ, Brewer P, Blumenthal DM, Derner JD, von Fischer JC. 2014. Prescribed fire, soil
inorganic nitrogen dynamics, and plant responses in a semiarid grassland. Journal of Arid
Environments. 104:59–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.022.
Barr S, Jonas JL, Paschke MW. 2017. Optimizing seed mixture diversity and seeding rates for
grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology. 25(3):396–404. doi:10.1111/rec.12445.
Baskin C, Baskin J. 1998. Seeds: Ecology, biogeography, and evolution of formancy and
germination. London: Academic Press.
BC Climate Explorer. 2021. Bc-climate-explorer.org. [accessed 2021 Nov 15]. http://www.bcclimate-explorer.org/
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate : A practical and powerful
approach to multiple testing Yoav Benjamini ; Yosef Hochberg Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society . Series B ( Methodological ) , Vol . 57 , No . 1 . ( 1995 ), pp . Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological). 57(1):289–300.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101.
Biswas D, Micallef S. 2019. Safety and practice for organic food. London: Academic Press.
Briggs JM, Knapp AK. 1995. Interannual variability in primary production in tallgrass prairie:
Climate, soil moisture, topographic position, and fire as determinants of aboveground
biomass. American Journal of Botany. 82(8):1024–1030. doi:10.2307/2446232.

122
Brockway DG, Gatewood RG, Paris RB. 2002. Restoring fire as an ecological process in shortgrass
prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and growing
seasons. Environmental Management. 65(2):135–152.
Burton CM, Burton PJ, Hebda R, Turner NJ. 2006. Determining the optimal sowing density for a
mixture of native plants used to revegetate degraded ecosystems. Restoration Ecology.
14(3):379–390. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00146.x.
Carter M., Gregorich EG. 2007. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd ed.
Collins SL, Calabrese LB. 2012. Effects of fire, grazing and topographic variation on vegetation
structure in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Vegetation Science. 23(3):563–575.
doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01369.x.
Covington WW, Sackett SS. 1992. Soil mineral nitrogen changes following prescribed burning in
ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management. 54(1–4):175–191. doi:10.1016/03781127(92)90011-W.
Duff TJ, Keane RE, Penman TD, Tolhurst KG. 2017. Revisiting Wildland Fire Fuel Quantification
Methods: The Challenge of Understanding a Dynamic, Biotic Entity. Forests. 8(9):20–22.
doi:10.3390/f8090351.
Enwezor WO. 1976. The mineralization of nitrogen and phosphorus in organic materials of varying
C:N and C:P ratios. Plant and Soil. 44(1):237–240. doi:10.1007/BF00016972.
Facelli JM, Pickett STA. 1991. Plant litter: Its dynamics and effects on plant community structure.
The Botanical Review. 57(1):1–32. doi:10.1007/BF02858763.
Fraser LH, Pither J, Jentsch A, Sternberg M, Zobel M, Askarizadeh D, Bartha S, Beierkuhnlein C,
Bennett JA, Bittel A, et al. 2015. Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between
productivity and plant species richness. Science. 349(6245):302 LP – 305.
doi:10.1126/science.aab3916. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6245/302.abstract.
Fujimaki R, Sakai A, Kaneko N. 2009. Ecological risks in anthropogenic disturbance of nitrogen
cycles in natural terrestrial ecosystems. Ecological Research. 24(5):955–964.
doi:10.1007/s11284-008-0578-x.

123
Fynn RWS, Morris CD, Edwards TJ. 2004. Effect of burning and mowing on grass and forb
diversity in a long-term grassland experiment. Applied Vegetation Science. 7(1):1–10.
doi:10.1111/j.1654-109X.2004.tb00589.x.
Ghermandi L, Guthmann N, Bran D. 2004. Early post-fire succession in northwestern Patagonia
grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02238.x.
Goergen EM, Chambers JC. 2009. Influence of a native legume on soil N and plant response
following prescribed fire in sagebrush steppe. International Journal of Wildland Fire.
18(6):665–675. doi:10.1071/WF08067.
Gough L, Gross KL, Cleland EE, Clark CM, Collins SL, Fargione JE, Pennings SC, Suding KN.
2012. Incorporating clonal growth form clarifies the role of plant height in response to
nitrogen addition. Oecologia. 169(4):1053–1062. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2264-5.
Grime J. 1973. Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation. 242(1):344–347.
Henry HAL, Chiariello NR, Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Field CB. 2006. Interactive effects of fire,
elevated carbon dioxide, nitrogen deposition, and precipitation on a California annual
grassland. Ecosystems. 9(7):1066–1075. doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0077-7.
Hervey DF. 1949. Reaction of a California annual-plant community to fire. Journal of Range
Management. 2(3):116. doi:10.2307/3893681.
Heydari M, Omidipour R, Abedi M, Baskin C. 2017. Effects of fire disturbance on alpha and beta
diversity and on beta diversity components of soil seed banks and aboveground vegetation.
Plant Ecology and Evolution. 150(3):247–256. doi:10.5091/plecevo.2017.1344.
Keeley JE. 2009. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: A brief review and suggested usage.
International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18(1):116–126. doi:10.1071/WF07049.
Kimura E, Islam MA. 2012. Seed Scarification Methods and their Use in Forage Legumes. Research
Journal of Seed Science. 5(2):38–50.
Kirkman KP, Collins SL, Smith MD, Knapp AK, Burkepile DE, Burns CE, Fynn RWS, Hagenah N,
Koerner SE, Matchett KJ, et al. 2014. Responses to fire differ between South African and

124
North American grassland communities. Journal of Vegetation Science. 25(3):793–804.
doi:10.1111/jvs.12130.
Marion GM, Moreno JM, Oechel WC. 1991. Fire Severity, ash deposition, and clipping effects on
soil nutrients in chaparral. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 55(1):235–240.
doi:10.2136/sssaj1991.03615995005500010040x.
Matthews JW, Spyreas G. 2010. Convergence and divergence in plant community trajectories as a
framework for monitoring wetland restoration progress. Journal of Applied Ecology.
47(5):1128–1136. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01862.x.
McCarley TR, Kolden CA, Vaillant NM, Hudak AT, Smith AMS, Kreitler J. 2017. Landscape-scale
quantification of fire-induced change in canopy cover following mountain pine beetle
outbreak and timber harvest. Forest Ecology and Management. 391:164–175.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.02.015.
McKenna P, Erskine PD, Glenn V, Doley D. 2019. Response of open woodland and grassland mine
site rehabilitation to fire disturbance on engineered landforms. Ecological Engineering.
133(April):98–108. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.013.
Moritz MA, Batllori E, Bradstock RA, Gill AM, Handmer J, Hessburg PF, Leonard J, McCaffrey S,
Odion DC, Schoennagel T, et al. 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature.
515(7525):58–66. doi:10.1038/nature13946.
Neary DG, Klopatek CC, DeBano LF, Ffolliott PF. 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability:
A review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management. 122(1–2):51–71.
doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00032-8.
Peco B, Carmona CP, de Pablos I, Azcárate FM. 2012. Effects of grazing abandonment on functional
and taxonomic diversity of Mediterranean grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 152:27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.02.009.
Pekin BK, Wittkuhn RS, Boer MM, Macfarlane C, Grierson PF. 2012. Response of plant species and
life form diversity to variable fire histories and biomass in the jarrah forest of south-west
Australia. Austral Ecology. 37(3):330–338. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02280.x.

125
Penman TD, Christie A. N. FJA, Bradstock RA, Cary GJ, Henderson MK, Price O, Tran C, Wardle
GM, Williams RJ, York A. 2011. Prescribed burning: how can it work to conserve the things
we value? International Journal of Wildland Fire. 20:721–733.
Peterson DW, Reich PB. 2008. Fire frequency and tree canopy structure influence plant species
diversity in a forest-grassland ecotone. Plant Ecology. 194(1):5–16. doi:10.1007/s11258-0079270-4.
Potts DL, Suding KN, Winston GC, Rocha A V., Goulden ML. 2012. Ecological effects of
experimental drought and prescribed fire in a southern California coastal grassland. Journal
of Arid Environments. 81:59–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.01.007.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In R Foundation for
Statistical Computing (4.0.3). https://www.r-project.org/
Rau BM, Blank RR, Chambers JC, Johnson DW. 2007. Prescribed fire in a Great Basin sagebrush
ecosystem: Dynamics of soil extractable nitrogen and phosphorus. Journal of Arid
Environments. 71(4):362–375. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2007.05.006.
Rau BM, Chambers JC, Blank RR, Johnson DW. 2008. Prescribed fire, soil, and plants: Burn effects
and interactions in the central Great Basin. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61(2):169–
181. doi:10.2111/07-037.1.
Ruthven DC, Gallagher JF, Synatzske DR. 2000. Effect of fire and grazing on forbs in the western
south Texas plains. 45(2):89–94.
Scharenbroch BC, Nix B, Jacobs KA, Bowles ML. 2012. Two decades of low-severity prescribed
fire increases soil nutrient availability in a Midwestern, USA oak (Quercus) forest.
Geoderma. 183–184:80–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.03.010.
Scheintaub MR, Derner JD, Kelly EF, Knapp AK. 2009. Response of the shortgrass steppe plant
community to fire. Journal of Arid Environments. 73(12):1136–1143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.05.011.
Sutherland CR. 2019 Sep 10. Encountering the burn: Prescribed burns as contact zones. Environment
and Planning E: Nature and Space.:251484861987104. doi:10.1177/2514848619871047.

126
Swanson ME, Franklin JF, Beschta RL, Crisafulli CM, DellaSala DA, Hutto RL, Lindenmayer DB,
Swanson FJ. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: Early-successional ecosystems
on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2):117–125.
doi:10.1890/090157.
Taylor CA. 2003. Rangeland monitoring and fire: Wildfires and prescribed burning, nutrient cycling,
and plant succession. Arid Land Research and Management. 17(4):429–438.
doi:10.1080/713936109.
Towne G, Owensby C. 1984. Long-term effects of annual burning at different dates in ungrazed
Kansas tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management. 37(5):392. doi:10.2307/3899622.
Turner CL, Blair JM, Schartz RJ, Neel JC. 1997. Soil N and plant responses to fire, topography, and
supplemental N in tallgrass prairie. Ecology. 78(6):1832. doi:10.2307/2266105.
Ubeda X, Lorca M, Outeiro LR, Bernia S, Castellnou M. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on soil
quality in Mediterranean grassland (Prades Mountains, north-east Spain). International
Journal of Wildland Fire. 14(4):379–384. doi:10.1071/WF05040.
Watkinson AD, Naeth MA, Pruss S. 2020. Storage time, light exposure, and physical scarification
effects on Artemisia cana seed germination . Nativ Plants J. 21(1):4–14.
doi:10.3368/npj.21.1.4.

127

Chapter 5 : Research Implications, Conclusions & Appendices

As disturbances to our ecosystems continue to occur through the extraction of resources,
it is of necessity that we are able to restore and reclaim ecosystem function to disturbed lands.
My research provides an approach that implemented contemporary knowledge of disturbance
ecology with traditional Indigenous knowledge of prescribed burning to enhance ecosystem
recovery on disturbed mine sites.
Utilizing prescribed burning as a method to enhance and accelerate ecosystem recovery within a
disturbed mine tailings facility found varying success. In a field setting that comprised a
grassland ecosystem that in its present state is dominated by largely undesirable, agronomic,
highly productive, rhizomatous grasses, a single disturbance event is not likely to transition the
ecosystem towards a native grassland. However, evidence was found that resulted in increased
plant diversity, and forb productivity with limited success (Scheintaub et al. 2009). It is likely
that without a continued disturbance of some kind, the ecosystem will return to its preburn, low
diversity state. Similar results were gathered in a greenhouse setting whereby the pre-disturbance
plant community continued to dominate, however a more significant shift occurred in the plant
community that allowed for increased diversity under controlled conditions and a larger
percentage of native species to germinate and take hold in the community. I suggest that the
disparity between the observed effects of prescribed burning in the field resulting in a reduced
level of species diversity in comparison to the greenhouse trial hinges largely upon requirements
for seedling germination. In the greenhouse, unlike the field, seedlings were watered resulting in
better germination. I speculate that this boost is a major contributor towards the seeded species
being able to withstand the fast growth response of the agronomics postburn which allowed a
larger window in which the seedlings could remain in the fight for resources. I were also able to
elucidate a significant factor that is likely responsible for limiting the plant community. Plant
litter was found to significantly limit the diversity of the plant community as diversity decreased
with increasing amounts of plant litter deposited by the fast-growing agronomic species (Foster
and Gross 1998).
From this study it is clear that disturbance has a role to play in changing the trajectory of the
plant community. It is also clear that the plant community at HVC, Highmont Tailings, is being

128
limited by a combination of highly productive agronomic grasses and their subsequent litter
deposition.
As the desire to complete this project was largely spearheaded by the Nlaka’pamux nation, this
project can be seen as a success such that western scientific and traditional Indigenous
knowledge was considered in efforts towards a common goal of enhancing biodiversity on a
previously reclaimed site. This type of partnership is unique with respect to collaborating on
mine reclamation goals and is gaining positive momentum towards starting a dialogue to creating
a mutual industry/ Indigenous relationship. Indigenous perspectives and consideration of
Indigenous Methodologies can and should be further developed in future projects.
Considerations for future research should focus on a more precise, replicable application of fire
disturbance within a field setting. In addition to this, teasing out the effects of fire severity should
continue to be examined as it is clear there is a role to be played with respect to varying plant
community response. Finally, any future projects that aim to create a relationship with
Indigenous communities should pay respect to Indigenous ways of knowing and focus on
integrating Indigenous Methodologies. These relationships should focus on ways to collaborate
to extend modern scientific practice that respects both ways of understanding.

129

Literature Cited:
Foster BL, Gross KL. 1998. Species richness in a successional grassland: Effects of nitrogen
enrichment and plant litter. Ecology. 79(8):2593–2602. doi:10.1890/00129658(1998)079[2593:SRIASG]2.0.CO;2.
Scheintaub MR, Derner JD, Kelly EF, Knapp AK. 2009. Response of the shortgrass steppe plant
community to fire. J Arid Environ. 73(12):1136–1143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.05.011.

130

Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Guide

Q1: Can you describe your job title, responsibilities, and history working with Highland Valley
Copper?

Follow up: How did you first get involved in what you do and what inspires you to do your
work?

Q2: In your opinion, what responsibility if any, do we have in restoring or reclaiming ecosystems
and landscapes on disturbed land?

Follow up: How would you describe Highland Valley Coppers approach to restoration and
reclamation efforts?

Q3: To you, what role does community engagement, social responsibility, and maintaining
relationships with key stakeholders play in the mining industry and who would you list as some
the key stakeholders?

Q4: What sort of relationships does Highland Valley Copper have with important stakeholders of
the area and can you describe those relationships?

Follow up: From the prescribed burning project, I understand that Teck Highland Valley Copper
has a relationship with the Nlaka’pamux people. How did this relationship come about?

Follow up: Can you describe the process by which the prescribed fire project came to be?

131

Follow up: How active are you in managing and facilitating this relationship and can you
describe your experience with this? What does this process look like?

Follow up: What are some of the challenges or opportunities, that you see in these relationships
and incorporating multiple viewpoints?

Follow up: In the field of restoration and reclamation what role does traditional ecological
knowledge play?

Follow up: What strategies do you use to maintain good relations with the Nlaka’pamux?

Q5: Aside from this project, can you describe some ways, if any, that the local community and
Indigenous collaboration are incorporated into the operations at Highland Valley Copper?

Follow up: Can you describe the relationship between Highland Valley Copper and the
Nlaka’pamux in terms of what the expectations of both parties are when working together?

Follow up: Outside of providing the rationale based on traditional ecological knowledge for
prescribed burning, can you describe the role the Nlaka’pamux played as part of completing the
prescribed burning project?

Follow up: What sort of feedback, if any, have you received from the Nlaka’pamux on these
projects? What does this relationship look like after project completion?

132
Q6: Can you describe the extent or scale to which Nlaka’pamux consultation and collaboration is
involved in other operations within Highland Valley Copper?

Follow up: Can you describe what the consultation may look like? I understand your company
ran and conducted workshops, what did these look like?

Q7: What is the most significant aspect of working with the local Indigenous communities at
Highland Valley Copper?

133

Appendix B: HVC Indigenous Engagement Workshop Invitation

Figure B.1. Teck Workshop invitation sent to the Nlaka’pamux community in
2019.

134

Appendix C: Commercial Seed Germination Rates for Field Experiment
Germination rate data for western yarrow (Achillea millefolium) and arctic lupine
(Lupinus arcticus) was unavailable.

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

Appendix D: Mesocosm Greenhouse Germination Trial

INTRODUCTION
Understanding seedling germination during reclamation and restoration projects can be a
major determinant of how the plant community is composed. Seed dormancy, purity, and
viability of seed can limit successful establishment of the proposed target community. Seed
dormancy is a block to the completion of germination under favorable conditions and can be
separated by physiological inhibitors in the seed coat. Gibberellic acids and physical scarification
has been shown to significantly increase maximum germination rates (Nasri et al. 2014,
Watkinson et al. 2020). It is also important to understand each plants life history and consider the
ecology of each desired plant species, combined with environmental conditions of the habitat to
maximize successful seedling germination (Baskin and Baskin 1998).
Prior to conducting a mesocosm greenhouse study in the winter of 2020, a seed germination trial
was conducted at the Thompson Rivers University Research Greenhouse (Kamloops, B.C.) to
examine seed viability, and determine PLS rates for mesocosm seed application. The objectives
of the trial were to: 1) determine the viability of native seed stock acquired for the greenhouse
study, 2) determine PLS rate applied to each mesocosm unit.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Seed Source
Seeds were purchased from ‘Quality Seed Collections Ltd.’ located in Kamloops, B.C.,
Canada. All seeds are pickseed directly from B.C.

Experimental Design
Germination rates of six study species (Table D-1 & D-2.) were assessed for two
treatments: ‘GA3’ and ‘water’. Each treatment was replicated three times (6 species x 2
treatments x 3 replicates per treatment). The germination trial was conducted over a 30-day

143
period under controlled conditions operated and maintained by Argus™ control systems (natural
and artificial light: day/night 18h/6h; temperature: day/night 21°C; humidity: 50-60%). A total of
thirty-six glass petri dishes (35mm diameter x 18mm deep) were lined with filter paper and
labelled by species and treatment. Each dish received 30 seeds of a single species and then
randomly assigned to a single block. Petri dishes were placed in the center of the greenhouse pod
(most stable temperature and light). Petri dishes were monitored daily for signs of germination
and mold. Filter paper was kept saturated with either a) 1000 ppm (10-mg L-1) Gibberellic acid
solution (GA3) (Adbulhafiz et al. 2020) or b) deionized water. Seeds were considered germinated
when the radicle length reached twice the radicle width. Germinated and moldy seeds were
removed from the petri dishes upon observation.

Statistical Analysis
Mean cumulative germination rates were calculated for each 2-day interval in order to
show germination success over the 30-day trial period. Descriptive statistics were used to
compare germination rates across species.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Viability of Native Seed
Germination rates of native grasses ranged from 60 to 78%, with Festuca campestris
having the lowest germination rate. Application of GA3 appears to have no significant effect on
the germination of the native grasses as the cumulative rate was lower in both cases. With
respect to native forb germination, their appears to be no response to GA3 treatment with
germination rate reaching 48% (Figure D.1). Legume species germination rate was the lowest
across all functional groups ranging from 11 % in Oxytropis campestris to 35% in Lupinus
arcticus. GA3 treatment appeared to have no significant effect with germination.
Castilleja miniata, unfortunately failed to germinate after many attempts and varying treatments
including cold and wet stratification and flash freezing (Figure D.1). As outlined by Luna (2005),
it is recommended to cold and wet stratify for 30 – 150 days, while I only allowed 30-days. As

144
this species is a hemi-parasite it is also recommended to host well with small bunchgrasses such
as the two selected native species in this study. In the future I would allow longer cold and wet
stratification while examining different host plants to examine success rates of germination.

Pure Live Seed
Pure live seed is a measure of seed viability and quality and is an important factor in
rehabilitation and restoration contexts to project the final composition of a vegetative
community. Pure live seed was calculated by multiplying percent germination by percent pure
seed, as per Dobb and Burton (2012). Grasses represent the largest contribution to PLS/m2 with a
total of 1100 seeds/m2 due to the highest cumulative germination rate, while forbs and legumes
represent approximately the same proportion at 390 seeds/m2 and 372 seeds/m2, respectively
(Table D-2). A cumulative PLS rate of 1873 seeds/m2 was achieved which represents an
acceptable application rate based current on reclamation and restoration standards presented by
Barr et al. (2017) and Burton et al. (2006).

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
•
•

•
•

Germination rates of grass species reached the highest levels compared to other
functional groups.
Castilleja miniata requires significant seed preparation that mimics over wintering freeze
thaw cycles to effectively germinate as per Luna (2005). Additionally, the seed acquired
may have been not viable or immature resulting in lack of any germination after multiple
treatments.
Treatment with GA3 appears to have no significant effect on germination rates and seed
emergence in all cases.
Grass species represent the largest portion of PLS due to the highest achieved
germination rates.

145

Figure D.1. Cumulative germination rates of selected species for the greenhouse mesocosm
experiment over a 30-day greenhouse trial. Treatments included deionized water (water) and
Gibberellic acid (GA3) 1000ppm solution. RF - Rough Fescue (Festuca campestris), RKY Rocky Mountain Fescue (Festuca saximontana), BES – Brown Eyed Susan (Gaillardia aristata),
PB – Common Red Paintbrush (Castilleja miniata), LOCO – Field Locoweed (Oxytropis
campestris), LUP – Arctic Lupine (Lupinus arcticus).

Table D-1. Mean cumulative germination rates (%) for each of the study species during a 30-day greenhouse germination trial.
Treatments were either deionized water (Water) or 1000 ppm Gibberellic acid solution (GA3).
Grasses
Water

Germination Rate (Cumulative sum)

Day
1
10
20
30

Festuca campestris
x̄
sd
SE
0
0
0
8.88 8.38
4.84
55.55 11.7
6.75
60
6.66
3.84

1
10
20
30

Gaillardia aristata
x̄
sd
SE
0
0
0
28.88 6.93
4
48.88 11.7
6.75
48.88 11.7
6.75

1
10
20
30

Oxytropis campestris
x̄
sd
SE
0
0
0
4.44 5.09
2.93
5.55 5.09
2.93
11.11 1.92
1.11

Gibberellic Acid
Festuca saimontana
Festuca campestris
Festuca saimontana
x̄
sd
SE
x̄
sd
SE
x̄
sd
SE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64.44 7.69
4.44
6.66
6.66
3.84
52.22
15.75
9.09
78.88 13.47
7.77
51.11
3.84
2.22
67.77
12.61
7.28
78.88 13.47
7.77
54.44
1.92
1.11
67.77
12.61
7.28
Forbs
Castilleja miniata
Gaillardia aristata
Castilleja miniata
x̄
sd
SE
x̄
sd
SE
x̄
sd
SE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.66
15.27
8.81
0
0
0
0
0
0
47.77
10.18
5.87
0
0
0
0
0
0
48.88
8.38
4.84
0
0
0
Legumes
Lupinus arcticus
Oxytropis campestris
Lupinus arcticus
x̄
sd
SE
x̄
sd
SE
x̄
sd
SE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.55
3.84
2.22
6.66
3.33
1.92
3.33
3.33
1.92
20
17.32
10
7.77
5.09
2.93
14.4
7.69
4.44
35.55 15.39
8.88
15.55
5.09
2.93
33.33
3.33
1.92

Table D-2. Pure live seed (PLS) calculations by species based on germination rate and seeding
rate.

Species

Germination
Rate (%)

PLS/200
seed

Festuca campestris

60

120

120

480

Festuca saximontana

78.8

157

157

630

Gaillardia aristata

48.8

97

97

390

Castilleja miniata

0

0

0

0

Oxytropis campestris

11.1

22

22

88

Lupinus arcticus

35.5

71

71

284

PLS/0.25m2 PLS/m2

148

Literature Cited:
Adbulhafiz F, Mohammed A, Kayat F, Zakaria S, Hamzah Z, Pamuru R, Gundala P, Reduan M.
2020. Micropropagation of Alocasia longiloba Miq and Comparative Antioxidant
Properties of Ethanolic Extracts of the Field-Grown Plant, In Vitro Propogated and In
Vitro-Derived Callus.
Barr S, Jonas JL, Paschke MW. 2017. Optimizing seed mixture diversity and seeding rates for
grassland restoration. Restor Ecol. 25(3):396–404. doi:10.1111/rec.12445.
Baskin C, Baskin J. 1998. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and, Evolution of Dormancy and
Germination. London: Academic Press.
Burton CM, Burton PJ, Hebda R, Turner NJ. 2006. Determining the optimal sowing density for a
mixture of native plants used to revegetate degraded ecosystems. Restor Ecol. 14(3):379–
390. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00146.x
Dobb, A., Burton, S., 2013. British Columbia Rangeland Seeding Manual. Ministry of
Agriculture, Victoria, BC.
Luna T. 2005. Propagation Protocol for Indian Paintbrush. Native Plants.
Watkinson AD, Naeth MA, Pruss S. 2020. Storage time, light exposure, and physical
scarification effects on Artemisia cana seed germination . Nativ Plants J. 21(1):4–14.
doi:10.3368/npj.21.1.4.

149

Appendix E: Plant Inventory for Mesocosm Greenhouse Experiment

Table E-1. Plant inventory and functional group classification for observed species within
mesocosm experimental study.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Functional Group Classification

Achillea millefolium
Bromus ciliatus
Bromus inermis
Dactylis glomerata
Descurainia sophia
Elymus trachycaulus

Yarrow
Fringed Brome
Smooth Brome
Orchardgrass
Flixweed
Slender Wheatgrass

Forb
Non-desirable Grass
Non-desirable Grass
Non-desirable Grass
Ruderal Herb
Non-desirable Grass

Festuca spp. (Festuca
saximontana & Festuca
campestris)

Rocky Mountain Fescue &
Rough Fescue

Native Grass

Gaillardia aristata
Linaria vulgaris
Lupinus arcticus
Medicago sativa
Oxytropis campestris
Poa spp.
Rumex crispus
Sisymbrium loeselii
Taraxacum officinale

Brown eyed susan
Common toadflax
Arctic lupine
Alfalfa
Field locoweed
N/A
Curled dock
Loesels tumble mustard
Common dandelion

Forb
Ruderal Herb
Legume
Legume
Legume
Non-desirable Grass
Ruderal Herb
Ruderal Herb
Ruderal Herb

150

Appendix F: Plant Inventory for Field Sampling at Highland Valley Copper

Table F-1. Plant inventory and functional group classification for observed species within the
field study in alphabetical order by scientific name.

Scientific Name

Common Name

Achillea millefolium
Bromus inermis
Cinna latifolia
Descurainia sophia
Elymus trachycaulus
Festuca spp. (Festuca
saximontana & Festuca
idahoensis)
Hieracium albiflorum
Medicago sativa
Poa spp.
Poa secunda
Pinus contorta
Rumex crispus

Yarrow
Smooth Brome
Drooping woodreed
Flixweed
Slender Wheatgrass
Rocky Mountain
Fescue & Idaho
Fescue
White Hawkweed
Alfalfa
N/A
Sandberg Bluegrass
Lodgepole pine
Curled dock
Loesels tumble
mustard
Common dandelion
Intermediate
wheatgrass
White clover

Sisymbrium loeselii
Taraxacum officinale
Thinopyrum
intermedium
Trifolium repens

Functional Group
Classification
Forb
Non-desirable Grass
Non-desirable Grass
Ruderal Herb
Non-desirable Grass
Native Grass
Forb
Legume
Non-desirable Grass
Native Grass
Tree
Ruderal Herb
Ruderal Herb
Ruderal Herb
Non-desirable Grass
Legume

151

Appendix G: Extraneous Analysis for Field Experiment at Highland Valley
Copper Mine

Figure G.1. Total nitrogen, carbon, and carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio from the top 15cm of soil
extracted from treatment plots comparing postburn to fifteen months postburn. (n = 3 within all
groups)

152

Figure G.2. Mean percent plant cover by species and functional group across all experimental plots by
timing of preburn to fifteen months postburn.

\

153

Appendix H: Extraneous Analysis for Mesocosm Greenhouse Experiment

Effect of Disturbance and Timing on Species Richness

Figure H.1. Mean species richness examining the effects of Timing (n = 30, +/- 95% C.I.) and
Disturbance (n = 30, +/- 95% C.I.) .) Bars with different letters indicate significant differences.
Pairwise comparisons between the treatment levels were adjusted with BH corrections.

154

Figure H.2. Interaction effect between disturbance treatment and timing, plotted as mean species
richness (n = 6, +/- 95% C.I.). Pairwise comparisons between the base mean of ‘pre-disturbance’ in
each treatment were completed and adjusted with BH corrections. ‘*’ p < 0.05, ‘**’ p < 0.01. Nonsignificant values were not plotted.