Multiscale Analysis for Ecological Content and Context: What’s the Question?

1. Multiscale Analysis for Ecological Content and Context: What’s the Question? J. Michael Scott Senior Scientist, United States Geological Survey, Leader Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

2. Mike’s Version • What’s the niche segregation in Hawaii’s honey creepers? • Where do they forage? • How do they forage? • How do they spend their time?

3. Yellow rumped Cape May Black-throated green Blackburnian MacArthur’s Warblers Bay-breasted

4. “And NUH is the letter I use to spell Nutches, Who live in small caves, known as Niches, for hutches. These Nutches have troubles, the biggest of which is The fact there are many more Nutches than Niches. Each Nutch in a Nich knows that some other Nutch Would like to move into his Nich very much. So each Nutch in a Nich has to watch that small Nich Or Nutches who haven't got Niches will snitch.” Dr. Seuss, On Beyond Zebra, 1955

5. Mike’s Products • Publications in Ecology and Science • Career advancement GS-13, just around the corner

6. Gene’s Version • Are the species still extant? • Where can I find them? • How many are there? • What habitat types do they occur in? • What’s the conservation status of the areas they occupy?

7. Gene’s Products • New wildlife refuges and management action plans

8. Products Various peer reviewed articles

9. Postcard Campaign

10. Biodiversity Treaty GAP GOES GLOBAL

11. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies • Developed as a federal state partnership as a state by state conservation assessment • GAP and TNC ecoregional plans provided foundation

12. Traditionally • Cantu, C. et al.2003. Conservation assessment of current and proposed reserves in Tamaulipas, Mexico • Cantu, C. et al. 2004. Assessing biodiversity in Nuevo Leon, Mexico: are nature reserves the answer? Natural Areas Journal 24:150-153.

13. Global and Continental Assessments in a Management Context • New datasets, technologies, and partnerships create opportunities for next generation of GAP

14. Regional Assessments • Davis, F.D. et al. 1995. Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California: the southwestern region. Madrono 42:40-78. • Stoms, D. et al. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of the intermountain semiarid desert ecoregion of the Great Basin. Great6 Basin Naturalist 58:199-216. • Pressey,R. L 1993.. Conservation reserves in NSW:crown jewels or left overs? Search 26:47-51. • Wright, R.G. et al 2001. Identification of unprotected and potentially at risk plant communities in the western United States. Biological Conservation 98:97-106.

15. Continental • Scott, J.M. et al. 2004. Ecological context and integrity of National Wildlife refuges. Natural Resources Journal 44:1041-1066. • Scott, J.M. et al. 2001. Nature reserves do the capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11:999-1007. • Cantu , C. et al. 2004. Assessment of current and proposed nature reserves in Mexico. Biological Conservation 115:411-417. • Dietz, R. and B. Czech 2004. Conservation deficits for the continental United States: an ecosystem gap analysis. Conservation Biology

16. 5.1% of the United States and 6.5% of Canada is in nature reserves (DellaSalla et al. 2001)

17. Boreal Forest Northward Agricultural Shifts: (Leemans & Soloman 1993) Northward expansions Corn, wheat, soybeans Reduced yields in current centers of production Temperate Broadleaf Forest Northward Temperate Mixed Forest Northward Tropical Deciduous Broadleaf Expansion High Low

18. Median Size of National Wildlife Refuges by Ecoregion LEGEND >100,000 ha 10,000 to 100,000 ha 5,000 to 10,000 ha 1,000 to 5,000 ha < 1,000 ha No NW Refuges

19. Ecoregions with >1 percent of lands in USFWS National Refuge System Eleven ecoregions have 1% or more of the land in the NWR System. The Southern Florida Coastal Zone Ecoregion has the highest percentage with 3.7% in refuges. Southern Florida Coastal Zone

20. Ecoregions with no lands in USFWS National Refuge System Fifteen ecoregions have no National Wildlife Refuges

21. By Ecoregion… 8 ecoregions lack even one park with significant natural resources, 8 more are only represented once. 0 Subunits 1 Subunit >100 Subunits

22. Enough to Last?? Median subunit size in only two ecoregions is large enough to preserve the historic number of large mammals. > 314,000ha Based on Gurd et al. (2001) and Wiersma et al. (2004) minimum areas.

23. Surrounding Counties 50Km Buffer 10Km Buffer Land Use & Land Cover US NPS Urban Agriculture Natural Vegetation Water / Wetlands

24. %Protected % Converted __________ = Conservation Risk 2.0 0.5 1.0 Protected < Converted Protected = Converted Protected > Converted (based on Hoekstra et al. 2005)

25. Projected Biome Refugia in 2100 in relation to USFWS Administrative Regions R7 Refugia in Green R6 R5 R1 R3 R4 R2

26. Potential Refugia in 2100 Only 34% of “significant natural resource” parks in the lower 48 are 95% certain to be in refugia. (Based on Griffith et al., unpublished model; Analysis by J. Roach)

27. Parks in Refugia by NPS Region 35.9% 57.9% 19.4% 100% 22.4% 27.9% (Based on Griffith et al., unpublished model)

30. 309 refuges will lose waterfowl species as a result of range contraction. 220 refuges will gain or retain waterfowl species as a result of range expansion or stable range Pidgorna et al. unpublished data

31. Methods • The three Rs of conservation(Shaffer and Stein, 2000) • Representation = save one of everything • Redundancy =don’t put all your eggs in one basket • Resilience the ability to withstand adverse conditions

32. Climate Change – The Winners Masked duck Steller's eider Fulvous whistling duck Black-bellied whistling duck King eider Ruddy duck Ring-necked duck Trumpeter swan Common merganser Barrow's goldeneye Blue-winged teal Bufflehead Harlequin duck Canada goose Northern shoveler

33. The “Biggest Loser” www.alaska.fws.gov

34. 59 - 73% genetically viable populations 45 - 59% demographically viable populations 12 - 45% evolutionarily viable populations Blades, 2007

35. Global • Rodriquez, ASL, et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected areas network in representing species. Nature. 428:640-643. • Brooks, T. et al. 2004. Coverage provided by the Global Protected Areas System:is it enough? Bioscience 54:1081-1091. • Rodrigues, ASL. 2004. Global Gap Analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected area network. Bioscience 54:1092-1100.

36. Where do we go from here? • Distribution of national wildlife refuge system in climate change refugiums? • Distribution of National Parks in ecological and geophysical space? • Ecological context of DOI lands?

37. What do we need to do? • Build a stronger research management partnership. • Work with climate modelers in regionalization of climate maps.

38. Enhanced partnership with USGS Land Trends Program • Combined social/economic and protected areas database • GAP related question using non traditional datasets such as: • Census datasets • TIGER files • Human footprint and GAP products

39. Management Doing Research/Knowing Doing

40. Overcoming the research management gap Global GAP Continental GAP Regional GAP State GAP Site GAP