Upload
aulii
View
35
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Lake Erie Land and Water - Clarifying the Urban Land - Eutrophication Linkage LEMN Research Needs Workshop 4.5A Thursday March 21, 2013 – Geraldo’s at LaSalle Park, Burlington, ON. Lake Erie Millennium Network (LEMN) http://www.uwindsor.ca/erie2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Lake Erie Land and Water - Clarifying the Urban Land - Eutrophication LinkageLEMN Research Needs Workshop 4.5A
Thursday March 21, 2013 – Geraldo’s at LaSalle Park, Burlington, ON
Lake Erie Millennium Network (LEMN) http://www.uwindsor.ca/erie2001 Binational Network - formed November 1998
Convening Organizations: F.T. Stone Lab - Ohio State University (Jeff Reutter) NWRI - Environment Canada (Chris Marvin) Large Lakes Research lab - US EPA (Russ Kreis) University of Windsor (Jan Ciborowski)
Sponsors: Federal, State, Provincial, Regional organizations
Collaborators: Groups active in research/information exchange
Supporting GroupsSponsors Collaborators__
(funds for meetings, publications, etc.) (contribute to data needs, etc.)
Essex Region Conservation Authority Citizens Environment AllianceGreat Lakes Fishery Commission Cornell University Biological StationInternational Joint Commission Ducks UnlimitedLake Erie Lakewide Area Management Plan Essex County Stewardship Network through Environment Canada & US EPA Great Lakes CommissionMichigan Sea Grant Great Lakes Environ. Res. Lab - NOAALake Erie Protection Fund Great Lakes Research ConsortiumNew York Sea Grant Great Lakes Lab Fisheries & AquaticOntario Ministry of the Environment Sci. - Fisheries & Oceans CanadaOntario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Commercial Fishery Assoc. Pennsylvania Dept. Environmental Protection Ontario Fed. of Hunters & AnglersPennsylvania Sea Grant Ohio Dept. Natural Resources US Geological Survey - Gt. Lakes Sci. Ctr. Ohio Environ. Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry Agriculture & Food Campbell Scientific Water Environment Federation DTE Energy, Inc. Hoskin Scientific
Monitoring
ModelingHypothesis testing
Research Questions Status of the Lake
Management Needs
Relationship among management, research, & monitoring needs within LEMN.
Forming collaborative groups (open to all)
Policy
Workshops and Research Arising
1. Limits on Energy Transfer in the Lake Erie Ecosystem - Critical Tests of Hypotheses
EPA-funded Lake Erie Trophic Status project (2002):-28 PI’s funded by US EPA ($500K)-all agency collaboration $2M in kind support - Journal of Great Lakes Research special issue (June/06)
2. Contaminant Processes in Lake Erie (2000)- Part I. Loadings, Spatial Patterns, and Temporal Trends - Part II. Mechanisms and Processes - Part III. Ecosystem Implications [review papers]
3. Habitat Structure, Function, and Change Anticipating effects of water level changes on habitat distribution & quality in the Huron-Erie Corridor
- funded by GLFC; 5 PI’s & cooperators; models proposed (2004) Binational Mapping Strategy for Lake Erie watershed
- funded by US EPA & Envir. Cda. (2005/06)-12 PI’s & cooperators- all agency collaboration
Workshops and Research Arising
4. Land-Lake Loadings IJC & OMAFRA Sponsored workshops (2008-2010):
-28 PI’s funded by US EPA ($500K)-all agency collaboration $2M in kind support - Journal of Great Lakes Research special issue (June/06)
5. Understanding Causes of Nearshore Eutrophication (2009)- BEC Intensive monitoring year (EPA, EC, MOE, OMNR, etc.)- 7 integrated projects funded by US EPA & LEPF - parallel studies in Ontario- SERA 17 Phosphorus forum
6. Collaborative Research under GLRI (& EC support) (2010)- update landuse/landcover for habitat classification- continuing nearshore research- monitoring wetland condition & ecological services
Great Lakes Composite Stress
Fuzzy Logic Model: Nutrient Dynamics
Fertilizer Application
Conventional Tillage
Septic Systems
Rural Agriculture
Livestock/Manure
Agriculure No-till
Urban
Drought
Natural Stream
Function
Wetlands
Natural Cover
Storm Event/Flooding
Climate Change
Riparian Buffers
Dreissenid Biomass
ShippingSediment Load/TSS
TP (incl. SRP): Loadings &
Concentrations
Internal Nutrient Cycling
Water Clarity
Water Temperature
Cladophora Biomass
Blue Green Algae Biomass
Impervious Surfaces
Bio-Mimicry (sustainable
cities)
Urban Stormwater
runoff
WWTPs
Hypoxia Fish Habitat Impairments
BotulismAesthetic
ImpairmentsBacteria at
beachesTaste and
Odour
Blue Green Algae Biomass
Cladophora Biomass
TP (incl. SRP): Loadings &
Concentrations
Shoreline Alteration
Toxins
WWTP Bypass
Increasing
Decreasing
Groundwater P Loadings
“Management interventions and causal structure”
• To solve a problem, we have to understand the cause
• Successful management also requires understanding the causes
• Different management strategies can be seen as experiments to assess causes
Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM)
• A tool for representing the causal structure of a system
• Elements include concepts (vertices; boxes) and relation-ships among concepts (arcs; arrows)
• The resulting FCM is (formally) a graph, and can be analyzed using various graph-theory techniques.
– S. Findlay
IJC-Sponsored WorkshopFebruary 2009
Original Exercise: Assessing causes of Eutrophication in the Great Lakes (S. Findlay, J. Koonce, J. Ciborowski et al.
5
17
1
2
4
3
56
7 8
9
10 11
12 13
14 16
15 17
18 19a
20
21 22 2324 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
4243
44
45
46
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
19b
In lake
47 +
58
59
57
60
Concepts (‘boxes’): Descriptors of the system.
Drivers (‘from’ variables) and Receivers (‘to’ variables)Restriction for FCM: Ordinal variables (must have a “size”)
Problem Term: “Soil Type”(important variable, but categorical)
Solution: Describe ordinal attributes- Soil permeability- Soil carbon content
Procedure for drawing FCM
1. Review lists of variable (grouped by functional class for convenience)
2. Select variables (labels) deemed most relevant for your map3. Arrange variables to form a flow chart.4. If no label exists for a variable, tell a facilitator; we’ll create
one or suggest an equivalent variable5. Write your team name/number prominently in a corner of
the map.6. Draw lines/arrows/pathways in pen/pencil from each
keyword (label) to other labels (variables) that are directly influenced. The ‘from’ label is considered the ‘driver’ or ‘emitter’; the ‘to’ label is the ‘response’ or ‘receiver’ variable. Draw a directional symbol near the origin of the line. If you think there is a feedback loop between two variables, draw two lines; one going from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and the other going from ‘B’ to ‘A’.
7. Indicate the ‘sign’ of the relationship with a symbol (+ or -) near the origin of the arrow. Write the number of the receiver variable beside the sign.
8. Provide information about each relationship (line) on a tracking sheet or in an Excel file.
Procedure for drawing FCM (Cont’d)
8. Use the tally sheets provided or an Excel file on a laptop to enter
the information neededTop of page: Team number; page numberUsing one row of the sheet for each line on the map: Place a value in each box of the row 1 “From” (driver) variable number2 “To” (recipient) variable number3 sign of the relationship (- or +) 4 strength of association (1=weak; 5=strong)5 spatial extent, (1=very local; 5=pertains everywhere)6 temporal extent (1=rarely pertains; 5=always pertains)7 time to response (1=very slow; 5=immediate)8 scientific certainty (1=poor understanding; 5=certain)9 team’s confidence (1=very uncertain; 5=very confident)10 change feasibility (1= very difficult; 5=very easy)
9. When the map is complete, tell a facilitator, who will photograph or scan your map.
Attributes: Describe the strength of the relationship, (not the importance of the driver or the recipient)
Sign: + = positive = negativeImportance/strength 1 = unimportant 5 = very importantSpatial extent 1 = rel. is local 5 = relationship holds
everywhereTemporal extent 1= rel. rarely occurs 5 = relationship always
holdsTime to response 1=very long lag time 5= immediate responseScientific certainty 1=basis for rel. poorly 5 = strong scientific
understood understandingTeam’s confidence 1=little confidence in 5 = very confident in
rating scoringChange_feasibility 1 = uncontrollable 5 = very controllable
“Arcs” (Arrows): Relationships between pairs of variables
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 Roamers
Brad BassMary-Claire
DoyleSamaresh
DasLuca
CargnelliSommer Abdel-
Fattah Raj
Bejankiwar
Terri BulmanSamantha
DupreShreya Ghose
Sandra Cooke Jennifer Drake
Jianrong LiuNeil
Hutchinson Brian GinnJerome Marty
Richard Nesbitt
Clara Tucker Henry Jun John PawlakGus
Rungis Igor YereminSandra George
Jordan Richie Tom Dole
Amanjot SinghMary Ellen
Scanlon
Facilitators: Jan Ciborowski, Jesse Gardner Costa, Patrick Galvano (Windsor) Brad Bass, Igor Yeremin, Shreya Ghose (Envir Cda)
http://www.LEMN.org