Upload
gertrude-parsons
View
214
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Integrating Climate Change into Landscape Planning
Modeling climate and management interactions within the ILAP framework
April 23, 2013Jessica Halofsky
Emilie Henderson
Modeling
• “Essentially, all models are wrong, but
• some are useful.” – Box & Draper 1987
“It’s Only a Model.” – Patsy, 1975
Projects behind today’s talks
• Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP)– Climate Change Module– Central Oregon Study Area
• Climate, Management and Habitat
How might climate and land management interact to shape vegetation and habitat?
Coastal Washington
Southwest Oregon Southeast Oregon
Northern Spotted Owl Greater Sage Grouse
Scenarios
General Topics for today’s talk:
• Starting conditions • STMs without climate• Climate impacts modeling
Modeling Strata
The overall picture:
Not locally precise.Useful for describing landscape-to regional
trends.
Current Vegetation
• GNN = Gradient Nearest Neighbor
– A spatial depiction of the FIA plots. – Structured by an ordination model.
• Gives us information on current vegetation within each modeling stratum.
Janet Ohmann, Matthew Gregory, Heather Roberts
General Topics
• Starting Conditions • State Transition Modeling, without
accounting for climate• Climate impacts modeling
State and Transition Modeling
Early Successional Young Forest
Mature Forest
Old Growth Forest
GrowthFireRegeneration Harvest
State and Transition Modeling:Dry Douglas-fir
Grass-Forb
Giant TreesModerate CanopyMulti-Layered
Pole-stage, single-story, post-disturbance
ILAP Potential Vegetation Types
PROBLEM:
Basic framework assumes that this map doesn’t change.
When climate shifts, sowill potential vegetation.
State and Transition Modeling
Early Successional Young Forest
Mature Forest
Late Successional Old Growth
GrowthFireRegeneration Harvest
Estimated harvests from the LANDSAT record inSouthwest Oregon
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
year
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000FederalPrivate Industrial
Acr
es
Ha
rve
ste
d
Thanks to Robert Kennedy for the LandTrendr maps of disturbance history
Current Fire
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
Acr
es
bu
rne
d
PROBLEM:
Fire regimes are set to resemble the recent past.
They will probably change with shifting climate.
Extracted from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity dataset: mtbs.gov
Preliminary results for Southwestern Oregon: Current management
Area with Large and Giant TreesNo Climate Change
General Topics
• Starting Conditions• State Transition Modeling, without accounting
for climate• Climate impacts modeling
– ILAP extension – Central Oregon Study Area
What about climate change?
• Climate controls ecosystem processes, including:
– Plant establishment, growth, and mortality
– Disturbance• Drought• Fire • Insect outbreaks
Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs):
• Link state-of-the-art knowledge of: – plant physiology– biogeography – biogeochemistry– biophysics
• Simulate changes in vegetation structure and composition and ecosystem function through time
*adapted from: Bachelet, D., J. M. Lenihan, C. Daly, R. P. Neilson, D. S. Ojima, and W. J. Parton. 2001. MC1: A Dynamic Vegetation Model for Estimating the Distribution of Vegetation and Associated Ecosystem Fluxes of Carbon, Nutrients, and Water. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-508.
biomass mortality
nutrient loss and release
Biogeography Biogeochemistry
Fire
fireoccurrence
lifeformmixture
carbon poolssoil moisture
lifeform mixture
live biomass
(MAPSS) (CENTURY)
(MCFire)
The MC1 Dynamic Global Vegetation Model
A Linked Model Approach
Dry Mixed Conifer
Xeric Ponderosa PineJuniper woodland
Moist Mixed Conifer
MC1STMs
Central Oregon Study Area
Historical vegetation in the study area
Vegetation type crosswalks
MC1 Functional Vegetation Type
STM Potential Vegetation Type
Subalpine forest Mountain hemlock and subalpine fir forests
Cool needle-leaved forest Moist mixed conifer and white fir forests
Temperate needle-leaved forest Ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and dry mixed conifer forests
Temperate needle-leaved woodlandMountain big sage – western juniper woodland and shrubland
Temperate shrubland Wyoming big sage shrubland
Xeromorphic shrubland Salt desert shrubland
Temperate grasslandBluebunch wheatgrass – Sandberg bluegrass grassland
Warm-season grassland Warm-season grassland
Climate Scenarios
MC1 Functional Vegetation Type Projections
MIROC CSIRO
Hadley
Halofsky et al. in review
MC1 fire projectionsMIROC CSIRO
Hadley
Halofsky et al. in prep
Linked model results
MIROC CSIRO
Hadley
Halofsky et al. in prep
Central Oregon Management Scenarios
• Fire suppression only– Fire frequencies same as the last 25 years under
fire suppression– No other active management
• Resilience– Light to moderate levels of thinning and some
prescribed fire in dry forest types
Effects of management on dry forests
Fire suppression
only
Resilience
MeanMin to maxRandomly selected simulations
Halofsky et al. in prep
Fire suppression only
Resilience
Halofsky et al. in prep
Effects of management on:dry forests with large trees and open canopy
Land
scap
e pr
opor
tion
Land
scap
e pr
opor
tion
Fire suppression
only
Resilience
Trends in dry forest structure<12.7 cm12.7-50.8 cm>50.8 cm
Conclusions for Central Oregon
• Linked DGVM-STM output suggests greater vegetation resilience than DGVM alone.
• Dry ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests will likely maintain dominance in the central Oregon study area.
• In some cases, management may dampen the magnitude of forest change under changing climate.
Halofsky et al. in prep
Technical Thoughts
• All models are wrong, ours could be useful• These models provide big-picture projections• The linked model process is data-, labor-, and
software-intensive
Getting to Landscape Planning
• We haven’t described the planning process itself, which involves conversations and people.– Stakeholders – Decision Makers
• Our models are useful storytelling tools. – Enable the asking of questions.– Realistic and plausible stories. – Enhance the role of science in conversations about
planning.
• Half of science is asking the right questions. -- Roger Bacon (c. 1214 – 1294)1
• Emilie, you really need to refine your questions!-- Dr. David Mladenoff, numerous times throughout my
career as a PhD student in his lab.1Wikiquotes
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
year
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000FederalPrivate Industrial
Acr
es
Ha
rve
sted
What activities?e.g., partial harvestregeneration harvestrestoration harvestprescribed fire
At what rates?
Where should they be applied?
Groups we have spoken with:
•The Nature Conservancy•Bureau of Land Management•US Forest Service personnel – regional and local•Local chapters of the Society of American Foresters•Washington Department of Natural Resources•Oregon Department of Forestry•Consulting foresters who serve nonindustrial private landowners•County commissioners
•4 activities
• 24 ownership/allocation categories
• ∞ variations in rates
Save the world!
Our Hope for our Work
• Tell informative stories that are grounded in science about how different landscape management policies and plans may lead to different futures.
• Relevance and credibility beyond the science community.
Funding:
Dominique Bachelet Emilie HendersonDavid Conklin James KaganMegan Creutzburg Becky KernsJessica Halofsky Anita MorzilloJoshua Halofsky Janine SalwasserMiles Hemstrom
ResearchTeam: