Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Andrew Hansen Montana State University
Jack LiuMichigan State University
Volker RadeloffUniversity of Wisconsin
Biodiversity Land Use and Climate Biodiversity Land Use and Climate Evolution of Three LCLUCEvolution of Three LCLUC--Funded ProjectsFunded Projects
NASA Land Cover Land Use Change Annual Meeting
April 4-6 2007
LCLUC HIstoryLCLUC HIstory
bull Started in mid 1990rsquos
bull Focused on the causes and consequences of land change
bull Novel in integrating natural and social sciences
bull Eclectic group of geographers sociologists economists ecologists
bull Regional case studies relying on first satellite-based land change detection
bullIn retrospect extremely innovate and groundbreaking
A tale of three LCLUC biodiversity PIs
bullJack Liu ndash Human consumption as a driver of biodiversity impact
bull Andy Hansen ndash Biophysical influences on biodiversity and land use
bull Volker Radenoff ndash National sociopolitical system influence on biodiversity
TopicsTopics
Human Impacts on Panda Habitat
Jianguo (Jack) Liu (PI) (with many collaborators)
Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State Universityhttpwwwcsismsuedu
Wolong Nature Reservebull One of the largest (200000 ha)
bull 10 of wild pandas (~1600)
bull Local residents (gt 4500)
Forest Distribution in 1997
Changes in Forest and Panda Habitat in an Example Area
(Liu et al 2001 Science)
Highly suitable habitat declined from 14000 ha to 12000 ha
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
LCLUC HIstoryLCLUC HIstory
bull Started in mid 1990rsquos
bull Focused on the causes and consequences of land change
bull Novel in integrating natural and social sciences
bull Eclectic group of geographers sociologists economists ecologists
bull Regional case studies relying on first satellite-based land change detection
bullIn retrospect extremely innovate and groundbreaking
A tale of three LCLUC biodiversity PIs
bullJack Liu ndash Human consumption as a driver of biodiversity impact
bull Andy Hansen ndash Biophysical influences on biodiversity and land use
bull Volker Radenoff ndash National sociopolitical system influence on biodiversity
TopicsTopics
Human Impacts on Panda Habitat
Jianguo (Jack) Liu (PI) (with many collaborators)
Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State Universityhttpwwwcsismsuedu
Wolong Nature Reservebull One of the largest (200000 ha)
bull 10 of wild pandas (~1600)
bull Local residents (gt 4500)
Forest Distribution in 1997
Changes in Forest and Panda Habitat in an Example Area
(Liu et al 2001 Science)
Highly suitable habitat declined from 14000 ha to 12000 ha
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
A tale of three LCLUC biodiversity PIs
bullJack Liu ndash Human consumption as a driver of biodiversity impact
bull Andy Hansen ndash Biophysical influences on biodiversity and land use
bull Volker Radenoff ndash National sociopolitical system influence on biodiversity
TopicsTopics
Human Impacts on Panda Habitat
Jianguo (Jack) Liu (PI) (with many collaborators)
Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State Universityhttpwwwcsismsuedu
Wolong Nature Reservebull One of the largest (200000 ha)
bull 10 of wild pandas (~1600)
bull Local residents (gt 4500)
Forest Distribution in 1997
Changes in Forest and Panda Habitat in an Example Area
(Liu et al 2001 Science)
Highly suitable habitat declined from 14000 ha to 12000 ha
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Human Impacts on Panda Habitat
Jianguo (Jack) Liu (PI) (with many collaborators)
Center for Systems Integration and SustainabilityMichigan State Universityhttpwwwcsismsuedu
Wolong Nature Reservebull One of the largest (200000 ha)
bull 10 of wild pandas (~1600)
bull Local residents (gt 4500)
Forest Distribution in 1997
Changes in Forest and Panda Habitat in an Example Area
(Liu et al 2001 Science)
Highly suitable habitat declined from 14000 ha to 12000 ha
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Wolong Nature Reservebull One of the largest (200000 ha)
bull 10 of wild pandas (~1600)
bull Local residents (gt 4500)
Forest Distribution in 1997
Changes in Forest and Panda Habitat in an Example Area
(Liu et al 2001 Science)
Highly suitable habitat declined from 14000 ha to 12000 ha
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Forest Distribution in 1997
Changes in Forest and Panda Habitat in an Example Area
(Liu et al 2001 Science)
Highly suitable habitat declined from 14000 ha to 12000 ha
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
WhyHousehold Production and Consumption as an Important Driving Force behind Habitat Degradation
Housing fuel wood agriculture
Number of Households Grew Faster than Human Population Size
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Year
Popu
latio
n Si
ze
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Num
ber
of H
ouse
hold
s
Population SizeNumber of Households
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Extend Findings to Other Areasbull Do households increase faster than
human population sizes at national and global levels
Rates of Growth of Populations and Households (1985-2000)
0
05
1
15
2
25
3
35
Hotspot Countries Non-hotspot Countries Total
Ann
ual G
row
th R
ate
() Population Growth Rate
Household Growth Rate
Reduction in Average Household Size is a Main Reason for Faster Household Growth
300
350
400
450
500
1985 2000 2015
Time (year)
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
per
H
ouse
hold
Hotspot CountriesNon-hotspot Countries
Total
Liu et al 2003
What are the implications of growth of population x consumption for sustaining biodiversity
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
200250300350400450500
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Cum
ulat
ive
Amou
nt
of R
efor
este
d La
nd
(ha)
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Policies Enacted to Protect and Restore Habitat
To return cropland to forest
To prevent illegal harvesting
Eco-hydropower Plant(2002 )
To eliminate fuelwoodconsumption
Grain-to-Green(2000 )
Natural Forest Conservation(2001 )
- Local case study leads to better understanding of global trends
- Lcluc change analysis allows society to visualize change and enact policy
- Improved local sustainability ndash led to advances in global sustainability
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bullBiophysical factors limit high biodiversity to hot spotsbullBiophysical factors also limit exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity bullNatural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West Ecology and Socioeconomics in the New West A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone A Case Study from Greater Yellowstone
Hansen et al 2002 BioScience
1 25-Year History of GYE Exurban growth largest land use change
2Causes and Consequences bull Biophysical factors limit high
biodiversity to hot spotsbull Biophysical factors also limit
exurban development to same landscape locations with negative impacts on biodiversity
bull Natural amenities drive of exurban growth
3 Risk Future growth can be placed to reduce impacts on biodiversity
National Park ServiceOther federal landsCounty boundariesBiodiversity hotspotsBiodiversity modeling mask
Low HighHome density
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Invited Feature-Introduction Land-Use Change in Rural America Rates Drivers and Consequences bull Andrew J Hansen Guest Editor and Daniel G Brown Guest Editor pages 1849ndash1850 Invited FeatureRURAL LAND-USE TRENDS IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES 1950ndash2000 bull Daniel G Brown Kenneth M Johnson Thomas R Loveland and David M Theobald pages 1851ndash1863 THE THREE PHASES OF LAND-USE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY bull Michael A Huston pages 1864ndash1878 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT bull Virginia Dale Steve Archer Michael Chang and Dennis Ojima pages 1879ndash1892 EFFECTS OF EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY PATTERNS MECHANISMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS bull Andrew J Hansen Richard L Knight John M Marzluff Scott Powell Kathryn Brown Patricia H Gude and Kingsford Jones pages 1893ndash1905 ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND-USE PLANNING bull David M Theobald Thomas Spies Jeff Kline Bruce Maxwell N T Hobbs and Virginia H Dale pages 1906ndash1914
Ecological ApplicationsVolume 15 Number 6 December 2005
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
GreaterYellowstone
Ecosystem US
Yucatan Mexico
Santareacutem Brazil
East Africa
Wolong SW China
BorneoIndonesia
Land Use Change Around Protected Areas and Consequences for Biodiversity
Nature Reserve
Human land use
Surrounding Ecosystem
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Ecological Applications Invited Feature Ecological Applications Invited Feature Land Use Change around Protected AreasLand Use Change around Protected Areas
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Land use change around protected areas Implications for sustaining biodiversity
Hansen AJ and R DeFries Ecological mechanisms linking nature reserves to surrounding lands
Vester H D Lawrence R Eastman BL Turner II S Calme R Dickson C Pozo and F Sangermano Land change in the Southern Yucatan and Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Implications for habitat and biodiversity
Gude P AJ Hansen and D Jones Biodiversity consequences of alternative future land use scenarios in Greater Yellowstone
Vina A S Bearer C Xiaodong H Guangming M Linderman L An H Zhang Z Ouyang and J Liu Temporal changes in connectivity of giant panda habitat across the borders of Wolong Nature Reserve (China)
DeFries R A Hansen R Reid B Turner L Curran J Liu E Moran Towards scientific principles for regional management of landscapes surrounding nature reserves
In Press
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Andrew Hansen and Linda Phillips Curt FlatherMontana State University Colorado State University
Biophysical and LandBiophysical and Land--use Controls of Biodiversity Regional use Controls of Biodiversity Regional to Continental Scalesto Continental Scales
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Human Land Human Land UseUse
(Land useHome
density)
Current Current Biodiversity Biodiversity
ValueValue
Biophysical Biophysical PotentialPotential
(ie EnergyHabitat
structure)
Conservation Conservation PriorityStrategiesPriorityStrategies
NASA EOS
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
MODIS Products and Bird DiversityMODIS Products and Bird Diversity
Gross Primary ProductionkgCm2yr 2000-2004
Estim
ated
Ric
hnes
s (lo
g+1)
5000 10000 15000 20000
0
1
2
R2=50 n=1617Rural routes only
Bird diversity is related to ecosystem energy
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
00
05
10
15
20
25
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Gross Primary Production
(x1000)
Bird
rich
ness
(log
+1)
Spatial Distribution of Spatial Distribution of Energybird Energybird RelationshipRelationship
Ecoregions lie on different portions of the unimodal relationship
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
MidMid--Energy Ecoregions AppalachiansEnergy Ecoregions Appalachians
1 2 3
15
16
17
18
Population Density
Bird
s R
ichn
ess
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Strong energy control
Low successional control
Lower human density
Weak energy control
High succession control
Higher human density
Energy depresses diversity
High successional control
Lower human density
Energy
Ric
hnes
s
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Vegetation Structure Effects on BiodiversityStructure Effects on Biodiversity
Coast Range Springfield Cle Elum
3000
5000
7000
9000
Bre
edin
g Se
ason
ND
VI
Goldfork Yellowstone Coast RangeSpringfield Cle Elum Goldfork Yellowstone
Mod
el R
-squ
ared
00
00
02
04
04
06
Energy only model REnergy only model R--squaredsquaredAddition to RAddition to R--squared from forest structure squared from forest structure
covariatescovariates
01
01
03
03
05
05
07
07
08
08
09
09
857 712258
107
288
0257
0300
0233
0327
0124
048000500461
0192
0667
Verschuyl et al in prep
Yes structure is most limiting in high energy systems
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on BiodivDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Disturbance Effects on Biodiversityersity
Yes diversity increases with disturbance under high energy and decreases under low energy
HighLow
Low
Hig
h
Diversi
ty
Landscape Productivity
Inte
nsity
of D
istu
rban
ce
SpringfieldSpringfield
Cle ElumCle Elum
Disturbance Frequency
Spec
iesD
iver
sity
Cle Elum
Springfield
High Low
60 70 80 90 100
810
1214
1618
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
s
Site SpringfieldR2=16P-value lt01
High Low
40 50 60 70 80 90
68
1012
14
of Landscape Occupied by Closed Canopy Forest
Bird
Ric
hnes
sSite Cle ElumR2=30P-value lt01
High Low
Huston 1994
McWethy et al in prep
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Variation in Interior Species with Biomass
Birdsy = 007x - 06979
R2 = 06782
Beetlesy = 00771x + 23499
R2 = 06457
Mammalsy = 00664x - 57805
R2 = 08958
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Biomass
Perc
ent o
f Spe
cies
Spe
cial
izin
g on
For
est I
nter
iors
Hypothesis Edge effects are more pronounced in high energy environments
High Biomass System Low Biomass System
Mid-daytemp
Mid-day temperature
Does Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on BiodDoes Ecosystem Productivity Modify Fragmentation Effects on Biodiversityiversity
Yes more species respond to edges in the more productive systems
Boreal Temperate Wet TropicalHansen et al in prep Data from published studies
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Vulnerability of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change and VariabilityChange and Variability
Andrew Hansen Steve Running Montana State University University of Montana
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Ecological Conditions of US National Parks Enabling Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and Decision Support Through Monitoring Analysis and
ForecastingForecastingNASA Applications Program Decision Support through Earth-Sun
Science Research Results Project
And
NPS IampM Program
Pilot national parksPilot national parks
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Conservation Category
Low Energy Medium Energy High Energy
Conservation Zones
Protect high energy places Protect more natural areas
Protect low energy places
Disturbance Use fire flooding logging judiciously in hotspots
Similar to ldquoDescendingrdquo Use disturbance to break competitive dominance
Use shifting mosaic harvest pattern
Maintain structural complexity
Landscape Pattern
Maintain connectivity due to migrations
Manage for patch size and edge
Sensitive Species Many species with large home ranges and low population sizes due to energy limitations
Forest interior species
Exotics High exotics likely due to productivity and high land use
Protected Area Size
Large Smaller Smaller
Land Use Low overall High overall Moderate overall
Focused on hot spots Emphasize ldquobackyardrdquoconservation
More random across landscape
Plan development outside of hotspots
Apply restoration
Managing along Biophysical GradientsManaging along Biophysical Gradients
Regional case study
Theory
Continental-global tests
Revise conservation strategies
Improve monitoring to inform management
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Land cover change in Eastern EuropeLand cover change in Eastern Europeand resulting effects on biodiversityand resulting effects on biodiversity
Volker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraVolker C Radeloff M Dubinin A Prishchepov C AlcantaraUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin--MadisonMadison
L Baskin and A Lushchekina L Baskin and A Lushchekina Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Academy of SciencesK Perzanowski K Perzanowski Polish Academy of SciencesPolish Academy of Sciences
P Hostert and T Kuemmerle P Hostert and T Kuemmerle Humboldt University GermanyHumboldt University Germany
A NASAA NASA--LCLUC and NEESPI ProjectLCLUC and NEESPI Project
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
IntroductionIntroduction
In 1990 the Soviet Union broke down and with itrsquos control on eastern EuropeHow did this socioeconomicchange affect LCLUC and thus biodiversity
1
2
3
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Brown bears in European RussiaBrown bears in European RussiaBear density in 2000
MODIS Landcover
-080-060-040-020000020040060080
Cor
rela
tion
(r)
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
European Bison in the CarpathiansEuropean Bison in the Carpathians
Poland
Non-ForestUnchanged ForestDisturbance 1994 - 2000Disturbance 1988 - 1994Disturbance 1979 - 1988
Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Slovakia
Ukraine
N
20 0 20 40 60 Kilometers
0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Poland Slovakia Ukraine
Ann
ual f
ores
t los
s (
)
Forest loss 1979-1988Forest loss 1988-1994Forest loss 1994-2000
Kuemmerle et al 2006 Remote Sensing of Environment 103449-464Kuemmerle et al 2007 Ecological Applications in pressKuemmerle et al 2007 Remote Sensing of Environment in review
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Eastern Europe LCLUCEastern Europe LCLUC
Parts of Eastern Europe are re-wildingLand use intensity is decreasingRemote sensing isgreat for habitat analysis and biodiversity scienceImportant to identifyconservation threatsand opportunities
1
2
3
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
LCLUCbiodiversity projects in the USLCLUCbiodiversity projects in the US
NASA-Biodiversity Remote sensing and avian biodiversity patterns in the United States NASA-IDS Disturbance effects on avian biodiversity DoD-SERDP Habitat monitoring for migratory birds US Forest Service The wildland-urban interface in the USPark Service LCLUC near Pictured Rock and Indiana Dunes WI-DNR LIDAR based forest bird habitat assessment
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
ConclusionsConclusions
bull Highlighted development three labs under funding by LCLUC biodiversity
bull Stages of developmentLocal case studiesTheory Continental to global testsConservation and management
bull This is true for many NASA PIs
bull LCLUC has also have strong positive impact on other programs NSF Biocomplexity USDA Managed Forests Ecosystems most recently ndash NSF NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
National Ecological Observatory NetworkNational Ecological Observatory NetworkHow will ecosystems and their components respond to changes in natural- and human-induced forcings such as climate land use and invasive species across a range of spatial and temporal scales
NEON puts the LCLUC regional studies into a national design for long term study
urban suburban ag exurban wildland
X ndash fixed tower
O ndash relocatable tower
Z - experiments
X
O
ZAirborne sensors
Land Use Sample Design
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullMaking conservation biology spatialbullHabitat structure vs productivity as driversbullSpatial variation in biophysical potential for biodiversity land use and biodiversity responses bullUse this to develop locally effective conservation and management
bullHuman population and consumptionbull(eg US is encouraging rapid population growth without evaluation of consequences)bullSocioeconomic and ecological consequences of population size and consumption habitatsbullManaging natural amenities-based economies
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
Future Directions for LCLUC BiodiversityFuture Directions for LCLUC Biodiversity
bullUnpredicted thresholds of change in land use (eg soviet union)
bullDue to climate changebullDue to human sociopolitical systems
bullLCLUC past present alternative futuresbullElevate land use to level of climate change in public and policy discussionsbullEvaluate the range of creative new land use designs now being employed
bullPartner with NEON
