Biodiversity Potential in the Pacific and Inland Northwest: Phase II – Applications to Industry

Planning Areas

Since the workshop on Boise:

Now 16 months into 3-year study

Evaluated bird data and predictor data for all sites

Preliminary analyses of year 1 sampling

Detailed discussions with each site on local sampling

Group development of NFWF proposal

Y2Y proposal submitted.

Transborder grant funded ($3,000)

Two large NASA grants funded for North America

NASA Grants Funded

Waring, R., N. Coops, and D. Fan. Predicting Tree Species Diversity Across The Contiguous U.S.A. From Seasonal Patterns in Photosynthesis Derived with Satellite-Driven Models. NASA. $600,000 for 2004-2006.

Hansen, A.J., L. Phillips and R. DeFries. Testing Biophysical and Land Use Controls on Biodiversity using MODIS and AMSR-E Products. NASA. $600,000 for 2004-2006.

Biodiversity Potential in the Pacific and Inland Northwest: Phase II – Applications to Industry

Planning Areas

Goals of this meeting

Finalize experimental design for obj 1 (regional) and for obj 2 (sites)

Finalize sampling effort for each site

Discuss logistics for each site

Address/resolve any issues of concern.

9:00-9:15IntroductionWelcome from Host (Loren)Meeting Goals (Andy)Meeting Schedule (Andy)

 9:15 – 10:15 Discussion of overall studyObjectives and Rationale (Andy)Experimental Design (Jake)Biodiversity data collection (Jake)Predictor data layers (Linda)Statistical analyses (Andy)

  10:15 – 10:45 Preliminary Results – Cle Elum Site (Jake)10: 45 – 11:15 Southeast US Biodiversity Study (Craig) 11:15 – 11:45 Site level Planning (plan for each site’s experimental design and logistics)

General logistics (Jake)Boise (Brian, Bob)Springfield (Tony, Jake)Cle Elum (Loren, Jake)Thompson River (Henning, Jake)

 11:45-1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 2:45 Site Level Planning (continued) 2:45 – 3:00 Schedule for 2004 3:00 Meeting Close

Agenda

1. Evaluate fundamental controls on biodiversity by testing hypotheses on the relative contributions of vegetation structure (stand and landscape) and “place-based” variables (biophysical) in explaining biodiversity along a gradient from maritime, west-side forests to more continental east-side forests.

 2. Extrapolate biodiversity potential across forest industry planning

areas based on locally-derived “best” statistical models, analyze spatial patterns of biodiversity in the context of industry objectives, and work with industry to derive biodiversity management strategies to achieve industry objectives.

Objectives

Rationale

Energy theory is hot among continental biodiversity crowd:

Waide, R.B., et al. 1999. The relationship between productivity and species richness. 69(2):330-339. Annual Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:257-300.

Mittelbach, G.G., C.F. Steiner, S.M. Scheiner, K.L. Gross, H.L. Reynolds, R.B. Waide, M.R. Willig, S.I. Dodson, L. Gough. 2001. What is the observed relationship between species richness and productivity? Ecology 82: 2381-2396.

Hawkins, B.A., E.E. Porter, and J. A. F. Diniz-Filho. 2003. Productivity and history as predictors of the latitudinal diversity gradient of terrestrial birds. Ecology 84(6):1608-623.

Hurlbert, Allen H, and John P. Haskell. 2003. The Effect of Energy and Seasonality on Avian Species Richness and Community Composition vol. 161, no. 1. American Naturalist 83-97.

Hawkins, B. A., R. Field, H.V. Cornell. D.J. Currie, J. Guegan, D.M. Kaurman, J.T. Kerr, G.G. Mittelbach, T Oberdorff. E.M. O’Brian, E.E. Porter, and J.R.G. Turner. 2004. Energy, water and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84(12)3105-3117.

Hildebrand, H. 2004. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. American Naturalist 163(2): 192-211.

Phase I Results

First study to test “place” portion of structure vs place hypothesis

Abiotic Conditionsharshfavorable

Place conceptForest structure

concept

East sideWest side

Influence on Biodiversity

Best Model: R2= .79

precipitation, slope, VPD land cover heterogeneity,

r ichn

ess

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Precipitation, breeding season

Eastside harsher ecoregionsEastside harsher ecoregions

R2 = .54

cm

Best Model: R2= .49

NPP, GPP, elev

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Precipitation, breeding season

Westside mesic ecoregionsWestside mesic ecoregions

R2 = .10

r ichn

ess

cm

Best Model: R2= .49

precipitation, slope, VPD forest habitat type heterogeneity,

Major implication:

Effective management varies along biophysical gradients.

1. Test structure vs place hypothesis and provide a basis for crafting management to local biophysical conditions

 

2. Do landscape scale analysis and mapping for each ownerships in a way that integrates structure and energy.

Phase II Will:

Products

Guidelines for stand and landscape-level biodiversity management across large timber-industry planning areas in the Pacific and Inland Northwest.

Two workshops for forest managers on the results of the study and guidance for landscape analysis and implementation.

An article in the Journal of Forestry that exports the management guidelines to the larger forestry community.

An article in Conservation Biology on the theoretical the relative effects of forest structure and biophysical factors on bird biodiversity in this region.