The Database of Vascular Plants of Canada or VASCAN (http://data.canadensys.net/vascan) is a comprehensive and curated checklist of all vascular plants reported in Canada, Greenland (Denmark), and Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France). VASCAN was developed at the Université de Montréal Biodiversity Centre and is maintained by a group of editors and contributors. For every core taxon in the checklist (species, subspecies, or variety), VASCAN provides the accepted scientific name, the accepted French and English vernacular names, and their synonyms/alternatives in Canada, as well as the distribution status (native, introduced, ephemeral, excluded, extirpated, doubtful or absent) of the plant for each province or territory, and the habit (tree, shrub, herb and/or vine) of the plant in Canada. For reported hybrids (nothotaxa or hybrid formulas) VASCAN also provides the hybrid parents, except if the parents of the hybrid do not occur in Canada. All taxa are linked to a classification. VASCAN refers to a source for all name, classification and distribution information.

All data have been released to the public domain under a CC0 waiver and are available through Canadensys and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). VASCAN is a service to the scientific community and the general public, including administrations, companies, and non-governmental organizations.

The Toronto plant list, excluding non-vascular plants, was compiled from several different species lists and crossed referenced for taxonomic verification. Six different plant lists that are actively updated were used, including: A list of species compiled through the Cadotte lab research within and around the city of Toronto (e.g., Arnillas & Cadotte 2019; Livingstone, Isaac & Cadotte 2020). A list of the vascular plants for the Rouge National Urban Park, supplied by park staff, that included 861 taxa, The plant list compiled by the Royal Ontario Museum -ROM (Royal Ontario Museum 2018) with the 1548 species recorded from the City of Toronto extracted. A biological inventory of vascular plants provided by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority from their ravine and woodlot monitoring program, which included 790 species. A list of plant observations was downloaded on October 21, 2019, from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility -GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2020) from a polygon drawn around the greater Toronto area (-79.67285 43.48641,-78.84888 43.88364,-79.27734 44.0497,-79.80469 43.82026,-79.67285 43.48641), which included 1881 taxa. A collation of natural history observations provided by Toronto resident Ken Sproule (http://toronto-wildlife.com/Plants/plants_family.html), which included 488 species. Species from these sources were checked against the Taxonomic Name Resolution Service (http://tnrs.iplantcollaborative.org/index.html) and further uncertain designations were cross-referenced with the Canadensys database of vascular plants (https://data.canadensys.net/vascan/search?lang=en) to confirm presence in Canada and the currently accepted taxonomic name. Species were then cross-referenced with the list of plants for the province of Ontario available through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s Natural Heritage Information Centre (https://www.ontario.ca/page/natural-heritage-information-centre) to provide up-to-date information on the provincial and national rank and risk (COSEWIC) statuses as well as whether species are native or non-indigenous (introduced). Non-indigenous species are those not known to occur in the province of Ontario prior to European settlement (Myers & Bazely 2003). I searched for species not found in Natural Heritage Information Centre with general online queries and in the USDA Plants database (https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov) to confirm if species have been introduced or were cultivated and present in our region. For species rankings (Bachman, Nic Lughadha & Rivers 2018), I simplified the coding by combining extirpated (SE and GE) and likely extirpated (SH and GH) into SE and GE, respectively. I classified unrankable (SU and GU) and unassessed species as S? and G?, respectively. Furthermore, for species that have a range of rank values (e.g., S3S4) I took the more conservative conservation estimate and selected the lower bound to represent the potential conservation value. I retained the SNA and GNA, not applicable, designations for non-indigenous (introduced) species. I further performed web searches for each non-indigenous species to ascertain whether they were predominately spread as cultivated or domesticated species. Each taxon was assigned one of nine growth form classes. Herbaceous: vascular plants lacking woody tissue. Graminoid: grass and grass-like plants in the Cyperaceae, Juncaceae, Juncaginaceae and Poaceae. Shrub: perennial woody plants with multiple stems, usually less than 5 metres tall. Tree: a woody plant with a single dominant stem, usually taller than 5 meters. Vine: a climbing plant with long stems that usually require a surface or another plant for physical support. Herbaceous/shrub: a plant that appears as an herbaceous plant in some conditions and as a shrub in others. Herbaceous/vine: a plant that appears as an herbaceous plant in some conditions and as a vine in others. Shrub/tree: a plant that appears as a shrub in some conditions and as a tree in others or is at the boundary between shrub and tree growth forms. Shrub/vine: a plant that appears as a shrub in some conditions and as a vine in others. In addition to species ranks and risk status, estimates of abundance from the number of occurrences of species in the ROM and the GBIF lists were included. I also created a composite abundance measure from the ROM and GBIF estimates by scaling both sets to be between 1 and 100 and taking the average of the two. Either the scaled ROM or GBIF estimates were used if the other was missing. I rounded the combined estimates to the nearest whole number. Further, the first date of observation for non-indigenous (introduced) species in the ROM list was also included. Urban areas have become epicenters for applied ecological and conservation research and policy. Yet, most urban areas have surprisingly little consolidated information about th...

Open AccessMethods copied from our accepted manuscript: Pyle, Lysandra A., Hall, Linda, and Bork, Edward W. (In Press). Northern temperate pastures exhibit divergent plant community responses to management and disturbance legacies identified through a producer survey. Applied Vegetation Science. 1. Study location We surveyed 102 pastures during 2012 (n=44) and 2013 (n=58) between May 24 and July 6, distributed across agricultural lands within 80 km of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. About half the pastures were in the Central Parkland (n=50), with the remainder in the Dry Mixedwood (n=50) and Central Mixedwood (n=2) subregions. A large and well-distributed sample size ensured wide variation in soil textures, seeded and non-seeded vegetation, and management actions. Pastures were selected using a stratified random approach, separated by at least 800 m. Pastures were identified through consultation with municipal county staff, then driving roadsides to confirm suitable fields visually. Pastures had to accommodate a 260 m long transect (minimum of 4 ha) with buffer zones from wetlands (30 m), forests and fence lines (10 m), with larger pastures given preference. Acquisition of sites was constrained by landowners’ willingness to grant permission to their land, although refusals were uncommon (n < 10). A privacy agreement with landowners prohibits us from releasing the locations of pastures. 2. Producer management and disturbance history Pasture management and disturbance history were acquired for all 102 pastures through a retrospective, in-person interview. Interviews were approved by the University of Alberta’s Research Ethics Board (ID: Pro0030842). Interviews identified historical and current land-use practices and natural disturbances potentially influencing soil and vegetation. Managers were initially asked about ownership and whether the pasture had been previously cultivated. If cultivated, managers estimated when it was planted (grassland age) and how (seeding history was described in Pyle, Hall, & Bork, 2018); cultivation status could also be classified as unknown (attributed to land-turnover or rented pasture). Recent management actions were summarized, including grazing history (grazing system, timing of grazing, number of animals, type of livestock, supplemental feeding with hay), mechanical treatments (aerated, harrowed, or swathed/mowed), nutrient addition (fertilizer or manure), or herbicide application. Livestock stocking rates [in animal-unit-months per ha (AUM ha-1)] were calculated for pastures (n=80) where adequate information on grazing activities was obtained (see Pyle, Hall, & Bork, 2018), where one AUM is the forage required to support a mature cow (with or without a calf) for one month. Other natural disturbances capable of influencing vegetation, such as a known history of recent fire, were recorded. All management actions and disturbance factors are described in Appendix S1 (Applied Vegetation Science manuscript). 3. Plant cover, ground cover, and soil properties Following the interview, a grassland assessment was conducted. To begin sampling, a random point was located from which a 260 m long ‘W-transect’ was laid out (Thomas, 1985). Plant composition and ground cover were assessed at nine equidistant locations using a 0.25 m2 quadrat. Foliar cover was estimated for each plant species, with trace species recorded as 0.1%. Plants were identified (Moss & Packer, 1983) and nomenclature updated using VASCAN (Brouillet et al., 2018). Plant species were later grouped into major cover components by origin (total native, total introduced) and growth form [forbs, graminoids (grasses, sedges, rushes)], as well as functional groups such as introduced grasses (seeded or widely naturalized), introduced legumes (seeded or widely naturalized), introduced ruderal forbs (agronomic weeds), noxious weeds [defined by the Weed Control Act (Province of Alberta, 2010)], native perennial graminoids, native perennial forbs, native ruderal forbs, and native woody plants. These functional groups are related to rangeland health, which evaluates key forages, along with unpalatable and disturbance-induced plants. For each pasture, plant community richness, diversity (effective number of species), and Pielou’s evenness were summarized for inclusion in multivariate analyses. At all locations where cover was observed, the area of litter and exposed mineral soil on the ground surface were estimated, and litter depth was measured at five random locations within the 0.25 m2 frame. Mineral soil was sampled to a depth of 15 cm at ten random locations. During preparation of soil cores (Pyle, Hall, & Bork, 2019), charcoal layers in the top 15 cm of mineral soil were often found, indicating fire occurrence in the pasture’s history and not reported by managers. For each grassland, soil properties including % total carbon (C), % total nitrogen (N), carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N), organic matter (OM), pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and texture (% clay, % sand, % silt) were measured. Procedures and specific responses are summarized elsewhere (Pyle, Hall, & Bork, 2019). 4. Rangeland health Rangeland health was assessed using the Tame Pasture Assessment Form developed by Alberta Environment and Parks (Adams et al., 2010; resources available at https://www.alberta.ca/range-health.aspx). In brief, this process evaluated grasslands based on six criteria, including: (1) vegetation composition and forage cover (tame or modified-tame), (2) the status of vegetation as either desirable (i.e., tall, productive forages) or non-desirable (non-palatable) species in tame pasture, (3) hydrologic function and nutrient cycling (abundance of litter), (4) site stability (exposed mineral soil and evidence of erosion), (5) noxious weeds, and (6) encroachment by woody plants (scoring is summarized in Pyle, Hall, & Bork, 2018). In total, 60% of the health score arises from vegetation attributes, 25% from hydrologic function, and 15% from site stability (Adams et al., 2010). 5. Literature Cited Adams, B. W., Ehlert, G., Stone, C., Lawrence, D., Alexander, M., Willoughby, M., Hincz, C., Moisey, D., Burkinshaw, A., Carlson, J., & France, K. (2010). Rangeland health assessment for grassland, forest and tame pasture. Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Alberta, Canada. Brouillet L, Desmet P, Coursol F, Meades SJ, Favreau M, Anions M, Bélisle P, Gendreau C, Shorthouse D, & Contributors. (2018). Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (VASCAN). Online at http://data.canadensys.net/vascan. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.25.3100 [accessed in August 2018] Moss, E. H., & Packer, J. G. (1983). Flora of Alberta: a manual of flowering plants, conifers, ferns, and fern allies found growing without cultivation in the Province of Alberta, Canada (2nd ed.). University of Toronto Press, London, Ontario, Canada. Province of Alberta. 2010. Weed Control Act. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Pyle, L. A, Hall, L. M. & Bork, E. W. (2018). Linking management practices with range health in northern temperate pastures. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 98(3), 657-671. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2017-0223 Pyle, L. A, Hall, L. M., & Bork, E. W. (2019). Soil properties in northern temperate pastures do not vary with management practices and are independent of rangeland health. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 99(4), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.1139/CJSS-2019-0076 Thomas, A. G. (1985). Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Science, 33(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500083892