1 / 42

Virtual Watershed

Virtual Watershed. NSF Biocomplexity in the Environment Program 2004-2008 Christopher Lant ( Geograph y) PI Steven Kraft, Jeff Beaulieu ( Agr. Economics ) John Nicklow ( Civil Engineering ) Michelle Zhu ( Computer Science ) Raja Sengupta ( Geography ) McGill

ulani
Download Presentation

Virtual Watershed

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Virtual Watershed NSF Biocomplexity in the Environment Program 2004-2008 Christopher Lant (Geography) PI Steven Kraft, Jeff Beaulieu (Agr. Economics) John Nicklow (Civil Engineering) Michelle Zhu (Computer Science) Raja Sengupta (Geography) McGill George Malanson (Geography) Iowa

  2. The Modeling Approach

  3. Corn Other crops Pasture Wheat Soybean Forest Urban Water Land Use is the Lynchpin Between Social Factors and Environmental Results

  4. 1999 Landuse Polygon Classification

  5. 2000 Landuse Polygon Classification

  6. 2001 Landuse Polygon Classification

  7. 2002 Landuse Polygon Classification

  8. 2003 Landuse Polygon Classification

  9. 2004 Landuse Polygon Classification

  10. Contingent probabilities of land use in a field given land uses in the previous year Probability that a hectare will contain Use last Year Corn Soy Double Grass Forest Total All Corn .07 .81 .01 .11 .00 1.00 All Soybeans .48 .34 .01 .17 .00 1.00 Double Crop.03 .24 .02 .72 .00 1.00 Pasture/Hay.02 .07 .01 .89 .00 1.00 Forest .00 .00 .00 .00 1.00 1.00

  11. Land Use Change Hypotheses • The use chosen for a field is influenced by the physical geographic characteristics of the field such as soil type and slope. (Yes) • (2) The use chosen for a field is influenced by economic costs and opportunities for various uses. (Yes) • (3) The use chosen for a field is influenced by the historical use of that field. (Yes) • (4) The use chosen for a field is influenced by the use of neighboring fields. (No)

  12. Ecosystem Services: The benefits people obtain either directly or indirectly from ecosystems (Millennium ecosystem assessment)

  13. Storage of rainfall and flood waters

  14. Carbon storage Maintenance of biodiversity Cycling of nutrients

  15. Maintenance of soil fertility

  16. Ecological-Economic Production Possibility Frontiers and their Evolution

  17. Create sets of Initial Alternatives (Initial Population) Evaluate fitness, Rank the alternatives GA Logic Choose mates(pairing) Repeat Create offspring (crossover) Multiple Generations lead to Optimal Solution Mutate Optimal Solution

  18. Corn vs. Soybeans: A Classic Trade-off

  19. Corn vs. Hay: A Classic Trade-off

  20. Hay vs. Soybeans: A Classic Trade-off

  21. Sediment and Water Quality Index: Highly Correlated R = -0.97

  22. Phosphorus and Water Quality Index: Highly Correlated R = -0.99

  23. Nitrogen and Water Quality Index: Highly Correlated R = -0.98

  24. Carbon and Water Quality: Complementary R = 0.83

  25. Water Quality and Flood Control: Complementary R=0.70

  26. Carbon and Flood Control: Slightly Complementary R=0.24

  27. Corn and Water Quality: A Trade-Off R = -0.83

  28. Corn and Flood Control: A Slight Trade-off R=-0.24

  29. Carbon and Corn: A Trade-Off

  30. Soybeans and Water Quality: A Trade-Off R=-0.46

  31. Flood Control and Soybean Yield: A Trade-off R = -0.89

  32. Carbon and Soybeans: No Relationship

  33. Hay and Water Quality: Complementary R = 0.90

  34. Hay and Flood Control: Complementary R = 0.71

  35. Carbon and Hay: Complementary

  36. The Overall Ecological-Economic PPF R = -0.83

  37. What We’ve Learned About the PPF • Landscapes that yield high or low sediment yields also yield corresponding N and P yields with correlations of 0.93 - 0.98. • Competition among crops for land produces as classic PPF • Soybeans, and especially corn, is a trade-off with all ecosystem services, but hay is complementary. • Carbon correlates positively with water quality at 0.84. • 5) The current land use pattern is very sub-optimal, more so with respect to ecosystem services than gross margin.

  38. Users Working with the PPF

  39. Users Working with the PPF

  40. Any Questions? Virtual Watershed Diagram from Proposal

  41. Key Papers Nicklow, J.W., S.E. Kraft, C.L. Lant, and E.G. Bekele, 2005. Virtual Watershed: Steps Toward Cost-Effective Generation of Ecosystem Services in Rural Watersheds. Proceedings of the IWRA World Water Congress. Nicklow, J.W., G. Misgna, C.L. Lant, and S.E. Kraft, in press, Evolution of Agricultural Watersheds in a Systems Management Framework. ASCE Monograph on Systems Education Lant, C.L. Ecological Economics and Water Resources Geography. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 142: 52-56. Lant, C.L., J.B. Ruhl, and S.E. Kraft, 2008. The tragedy of ecosystem services. Bioscience 58(10): 969-974. Lant, C.L. Kraft, S.E., J. Beaulieu, D. Bennett, T. Loftus, and J. Nicklow, 2005. Using GIS-Based Ecological-Economic Modeling to Evaluate Policies Affecting Agricultural Watersheds. Ecological Economics 55(4): 467-484.

More Related