350 likes | 433 Views
Analyzing the Future of Rural Forests in Massachusetts - Implications for Conservation. Jonathan Thompson thompsonjr@si.edu. What if?. or…. or…. Writ large…. For a given climate scenario… :. Developed?. Aggregate changes. Harvested?. Forest Condition. Conservation?.
E N D
Analyzing the Future of Rural Forests in Massachusetts - Implications for Conservation Jonathan Thompson thompsonjr@si.edu
What if? or… or… Writ large…
For a given climate scenario…: Developed? Aggregate changes Harvested? Forest Condition Conservation? Establish, Grow, Compete, Die & Decompose Wind or Ice? Map species & biomass
For a given climate scenario…: Developed? Aggregate changes Harvested? Forest Condition Conservation? Establish, Grow, Compete, Die & Decompose Wind or Ice? Map species & biomass
Actual Forest Loss to Development 1985 to 1999
Simulating Current Trends:Housing Development Size of New Developments N = 300 Ave = 55%
Simulating Current Trends:Housing Development • 4300 ha /yr • 5 development treatments (historical size and intensity) • Historical spatial distribution
For a given climate scenario…: Developed? Aggregate changes Harvested? Forest Condition Conservation? Establish, Grow, Compete, Die & Decompose Wind or Ice? Map species & biomass
Simulating Current Trends:Timber Harvest Actual Timber Harvest 1985 to 2004 POPULATION DENSITY > 13,000 Harvests
Development Probability Harvest
Simulating Current Trends:Timber Harvest • 10,500 ha/yr • 6 different treatments (historical size, species & intensity) • Historical spatial distribution
For a given climate scenario…: Developed? Aggregate changes Harvested? Forest Condition Conservation? Establish, Grow, Compete, Die & Decompose Wind or Ice? Map species & biomass
For a given climate scenario…: Developed? Aggregate changes Harvested? Forest Condition Conservation? Establish, Grow, Compete, Die & Decompose Wind or Ice? Map species & biomass
Fifty-years of Carbon sequestration at “Current Trends” Growth only = + 70% Conversion = - 8 % Timber Harvests = - 2 % Climate Change = + 6 %
Not a lot of difference in relative spp abundance. ALL OTHER BELE BEPA FAGR ACSA3 BELE QURU TSCH PIST ACRU • White Pine and Red Maple were 1st & 2nd irrespective • Climate change reinforced their dominance • Harvesting reduced Red Oak from 11 to 9.5% • Development was indiscriminate in terms of species
Take home message: Assuming Future Land Use Resembles the Recent Past • Continued forest recovery will be the dominant mechanism driving forest dynamics over the next fifty years • Climate change may enhance the rate of carbon sequestration, BUT this will be more than offset by losses due to land-use, primarily forest conversion to developed uses.
"Future Directions" • Complete multiple, stake-holder driven scenarios for MA • Link a series of alternative scenarios to metrics of water and habitat quality • Develop New England-wide approach • Host workshop with potential partners in other regions
Questions? Jonathan R. Thompson, PhD Research Ecologist Smithsonian Institution thompsonjr@si.edu 540.635.6580
Initial Forest Condition MA GNN Work led by Ty Wilson, USFS Northern Research Station
Initial Forest Condition From Imputation of field data: Species Distributions, Age Class Distributions, Above Ground Biomass
Initial Forest Condition r = 0.7 RMSE = 44Mg ha-1
PnET-ii Aber et al. LINKAGES Pastor et al. ANPP PEST LANDIS-II: Forest Landscape Simulator Scheller and Mladenoff LANDIS-II WITH MODULES COMPETITION/ SUCCESSION SEED DISPERSAL IPCC CLIMATE SCENARIOS HARVESTING TREE SPECIES ESTABLISHMENT CONSERVATION LAND USE CHANGE LIVING BIOMASS INSECTS / DISEASE DEAD BIOMASS SPATIALLY INTERACTIVE PROCESSES NON-SPATIAL COMMUNITY PROCESSES
Parsing the Current Trends Simulation experiment with full factorial design and five replicates of each simulation (based on power analysis)