Forest Health Based Scenario Building - University of Florida · Scenario Building • Scenarios...
Transcript of Forest Health Based Scenario Building - University of Florida · Scenario Building • Scenarios...
Forest Health Based Scenario Building An accessible tool for climate change
management in Bruce Peninsula National Park
Kelly Moores Environment & Resource
Studies
Challenges for Parks
Challenges for Parks
Importance
• Ecological Integrity Mandate • Question System Plan representation
strategy • Maintain biodiversity • Facilitate northward migration • Monitor long term changes • Lead by example
Barriers
• Human Resources • Financial Resources • 2012 Budget Cuts
exacerbate problem • Political will…
Research Objective Use an established research program, regional
climate models and scenario building technique to create an accessible tool that can be used by park managers to anticipate future restoration needs caused by climate change and facilitated improved decision making
Conceptual Framework
Use Primary Climate Scenarios to Assess Potential
Changes to Temperature and
Precipitation
Examine Historical Monitoring
Knowledge for a Key System Driver
Build Management Scenarios based on
Stage 1 & 2 and examine their
implications for park management
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Stage 1
Sugar Maple 18%
Eastern Cedar 54%
Paper Birch 8%
Trembling Aspen
6%
White Spruce 8%
Other 6%
Adult tree abundance: Number of each tree species by percentage of trees
Stage 1 Site Annual Growth Rate Mortality
State of the Park 2010 2.21% 0%
Pendall Point 2.6% 0.53%
Horse Lake Trail -0.96% 1.28%
Cameron Lake Dunes 2.67% 0%
Emmett Lake 4.00% 0%
Average 2008-2012 2.10% 0.45%
Stage 1
Maple, 238
Balsem, 43
Aspen, 2
Cedar, 9 Ash, 45
Birch, 1
Regeneration data: Abundance of saplings by species
Stage 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Diff
eren
ce fr
om th
e R
efer
ence
in D
egre
e C
elci
us
A2 TP1
A2 TP2
A2 TP3
B1 TP1
B1 TP2
B1 TP3
Difference between predictions of monthly max temp (C) to the reference level for the BPNP region using
scenarios A2 and B1
Stage 2
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Mon
thly
pre
cipi
tatio
n in
mm
A2 TP1
A2 TP2
A2 TP3
Reference
B1 TP1
B1 TP2
B1 TP3
Variation predicted for monthly precipitation
Scenario Building
• Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold, a tool to analyze how driving forces might affect future outcomes
• Not a prediction, no probabilities assigned • Driving forces often include: demographics,
economics, technology, legislation, social values an attitudes
Scenario Building
B1
Assess impact on forest health
Passive Management
Active Management
Active Management
Passive Management
Scenario # 1
Scenario # 2
Scenario # 3
Scenario # 4
A2
Scenarios
Passive management
Active management
Less climate impact More climate impact
Scenario 2 Regional
Resilience
Scenario 3 Novelized
Forests
Scenario 4 Anticipatory Restoration
Scenario 1 Status Quo
Scenario Conclusions
• Most trees generalists • Soil and light
requirements important • Forest Health of BPNP
not in danger • Forest Health ≈ EI
Recommendations for BPNP
• More funding is always better • Emphasis on invasive species/pest
management • Soil conservation measures
Limitations • Only one major
indicator • New park – minimal
long term data • Studying a disturbed
system • Point of reference
for EI
Take Home Concepts • Minimal resources required • Shows multiple possible outcomes • Narrative format for easy communication • Anticipates action required • Efficient use of restoration funds • Focus on EI mandate
Acknowledgements • Thanks to my supervisor Stephen Murphy • Thank you to Scott Lemieux and the staff at
Bruce Peninsula National Park. • Sources of funding, thank you NSERC and
University of Waterloo.
Thank-you
References
Araújo, Miguel B, Diogo Alagador, Mar Cabeza, David Nogués-Bravo, and Wilfried Thuiller. 2011. “Climate change threatens European conservation areas.” Ecology letters 14(5):484–92. Retrieved March 12, 2012 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3116148&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract).
Baron, Jill S et al. 2009. “Options for national parks and reserves for adapting to climate change.” Environmental management 44(6):1033–42. Retrieved July 16, 2011 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2791479&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract).
Becker, Harold S. 1983. “Scenarios A Tool of Growing Importance to Policy Analysts in Government and Industry.” |technological forcasting and social change 120:95–120.
Burns, Catherine E, Kevin M Johnston, and Oswald J Schmitz. 2003. “Global climate change and mammalian species diversity in U.S. national parks.” PNAS 100(20):11474–11477.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. IPCC Special Report: Emission Scenarios. Lemieux, Christopher J., Thomas J. Beechey, and Paul a. Gray. 2011. “Prospects for Canada’s protected areas
in an era of rapid climate change.” Land Use Policy 28(4):928–941. Retrieved March 5, 2012 (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264837711000299).
Lemieux, Christopher J., Thomas J. Beechey, Daniel J. Scott, and Paul a. Gray. 2011. “The state of climate change adaptation in Canada’s protected areas sector.” Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 55(3):301–317. Retrieved March 27, 2012 (http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2010.00336.x).
Parks Canada. 1997. National Park System Plan. Retrieved (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/pr-sp/index_e.asp).
Scott, Daniel, J A Y R Malcolm, and Christopher Lemieux. 2002. “Climate change and modelled biome representation in Canada ’ s national park system : implications for system planning and park mandates.” Ecology 25:475–484.
Urban, Mark C, Josh J Tewksbury, and Kimberly S Sheldon. 2012. “On a collision course: competition and dispersal differences create no-analogue communities and cause extinctions during climate change.” Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society. Retrieved March 3, 2012 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217718).
Importance
Ecological Integrity: A condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including biotic and abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes
Scenario 1: Status Quo • B1 Passive Management
• Forest remains very
similar with small reduction in health of cedar and balsam fir over time
• Most change due to succession forest type dictated by soil depth
Scenario 2: Regional Resilience • B1 Active Management
• Forest of generalist trees experiences
minimal impact. Opportunity to build ecological integrity by targeting management and removing invasive species
Scenario 3: Novelized Forests • A2 Passive Management
• Declines in the health of
several boreal conifers but deciduous overtake minimal due to poor soil. Increase in shrub plants and invasive species, loss of habitat and EI
Scenario 4: Anticipatory Restoration • A2 Active Management
• Use planting to maintain coniferous/
deciduous forest structure • More effort needed to maintain hardwood
forest, opportunity to reintroduce historic hemlock
• Much effort needed to control invasive species and maintain good forest habitat
Importance
Location
Methods • EMAN forest health monitoring protocol Tree species, status, crown class, crown condition
Stage 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Maple Cedar Birch Balsem Aspen Spruce Unknown
Tre
e Q
uant
ity
Tree Species
# dead trees
% dead
Mortality data: Number of dead trees per species relative to total number of trees per species
Methods • EMAN forest health monitoring protocol Downed Woody Debris, Regeneration
Figure 3. Example of 45.14 meters transect for down woody debris.
20m x 20m Plot
20 m
20m
5.14m
Stage 2
Comparison to reference
Climate variable Reference A2 TP1 B1 TP1 A2 TP2 B1 TP2 A2 TP3 B1 TP3
Annual Mean Temperature °C 6.03 1.8 1.06 3.16 2.47 4.79 2.82
Annual Min Temperature °C 1.74 1.97 1.21 3.42 2.69 5.12 3.08
Annual Max Temperature °C 10.32 1.63 0.91 2.89 2.25 4.45 2.56
Annual Precipitation mm 924 10.5 -24.5 33 26 111.5 46
Precip in warmest quarter mm 211 -11 -12.5 -20 -9.5 3 -13.5
# of days of growing season 213 18.6 9 24 22 40 25.5