andy hansen montana state...

ANDY HANSENMontana State University

Vulnerability of Tree Species and Biome Types to Climate Change in the U.S. Northern Rocky

Mountains and Yellowstone

Andy Hansen, Linda Phillips, Tony Chang, Nathan Piekielek, Katie Ireland

Montana State University and Penn State University

NASA Applied Sciences Program(NNH10ZDA001N - BIOCLIM)

GNLCC WebinarMarch 18 2015

Which tree species and biome types are most vulnerable to climate change and how can management help?

• Meta-analysis of tree species and biome climate suitability across the US Northern Rockies.

Hansen, Phillips. 2015. Forest Ecology and Mgt.

• Habitat suitability of tree species in Greater Yellowstone.

Piekielek, Hansen, Chang. In Review. EcoInformatics.

• Climate suitability modeling for whitebark pine in Yellowstone.

Chang, Hansen, Piekielek. 2014. Plos ONE.

• Implications for management: WBP in the GYE.Hansen et al. In Review. Biol. Cons.; Ireland et al. In Prep.

Studies Summarized

Landscape Climate Change Vulnerability Project

NASA Applied Sciences ProgramNorth Central Climate Sciences

CenterMT EPSCoR

Goal: Understand and manage wildland ecosystems under climate

change

Study Areas

Principle ResearchersA Hansen, C Whitlock, E Shanahan: Montana

State UnivS Goetz, P Jantz: Woods Hole Research

CenterB Monihan, J Gross: NPS I&M Program

T Olliff: NPS / Great Northern LCCF Melton: CSU Monterey Bay / NASA AmesD Theobald: Conservation Science Partners

Western US• NPS I&M Greater Yellowstone Network: K Legg• NPS I&M Rocky Mountain Network: M Britten• GYCC: V. Kelly• GYCC Whitebark Pine Subcom: K Buermeyer• Grand Teton National Park: D. Reinhart• Yellowstone National Park: A Rodmann• Rocky Mountain National Park: B Bobowski

Agency Collaborators

Eastern US• NPS I&M Appalachian Highlands Network: R

Emmott• NPS I&M Eastern Rivers and Mountains

Network: M Marshall• NPS I&M Mid-Atlantic Network: J Comiskey• Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area:

R Evans, L Morelock• Great Smoky Mountains National Park: J Renfro• Shenandoah National Park: J Schaberl

Collaborative Approach to Climate Adaptation

John Gross, NPS Climate ScientistBen Bobowski, Chief of Resources, Rocky

Mountain National Park

Glick et al. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon.

Scientific Assessment

Climate Envelope ModelingLa

titu

de (Y)

Longitude (X)

Tempe

ratu

re

Moisture

Ppres = f (climate)

Identify places where future climate is projected to be suitable for a species.

1. Identify where the species is present 2. Obtain climate data for these locations

4. Project presence under future conditions 3. Statistically relate presence to climate

N. Zimmerman 2014

Climate Envelop Modeling

Utility• Climate suitability is a strong

indicator of where viable populations may be able to exist.

• Other controlling factors can be manipulated through management.

• Thus, knowledge of climate suitability is a first filter for prioritizing research and management.

Ignores Change in• Disturbance / pests

• Competition with other species

Ignores• Adaptive capacity: dispersal,

genetic variation, etc.

Meta-analysis for US Northern Rockies

Study Statistical modeling method

Reference and future projection

periods

Scenarios / GCMs Vegetation units

Rehfeldt et al. 2012

Random Forests 1961-19902030, 2060, 2090

A1, B2 /Consensus of CGCM3, GFDLCM21, HADCM3

Biomes

Crookson et al. 2010

Random Forests 1961-19902030, 2060, 2090

A1, B2 / CGCM3, GFDLCM21, HADCM3

Tree species

Coops and Waring 2011

Decision Tree Regression

1950-19752020’s, 2050’s, 2080’s

A1, B2 / CGCM3

Tree species

Gray & Hamann 2013

Random Forests 1961-19902020s, 2050s, 2080s

Consensus of AIFI, A2, B1, B2 under CGCM, CSIRO2, HADCM3, ECHAM4, PCM

Tree species

Bell et al. 2014 Baysian Logistic Regression

1981-20102070-2099

A1, B2 /Average of 16 GCMs

Tree species

Selected based on: GNLCC or wider in extent; used comparable GCMs, scenarios, methods; grain size projection results available.

Future Climate Projection: Scenarios

IPCC CMIP4 (2007)

A2

B1

IPCC CMIP5 (2013)

RCP 8.5

RCP 4.5“Business as usual emissions”

“Global reductions in emissions”

Story Line

Future Climate

CMIP5, 8 GCM ensemble averageReference period: 1980-2005 average

Context: Mean July temperature across North America since the end of the last ice age 14 000 years ago varied ~5 0C (Viau et al. 2006).

GYE PACE

Change in temperature by 2100 (°C)

RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5

3.0 7.0

Change in PPT (mm) by 2100

RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5

60 (7.5%) 130 (16.3%)

Future ClimateGYE PACE

CMIP5, 8 GCM ensemble average, 800 m Aridity Index (PET/PPT)

RCP 4.5

RCP 8.5

Biome Types

Current 2090

A2 , B1, 3 GCMconsensus

Biome Types A2, B1, 3 GCMconsensus

Perc

ent o

f GN

LCC

Sui

tabl

e in

Clim

ate

Tree Species

Subalpine

Montane

Mesic

Western hemlock

Western redcedar

Crookston et al.Coops & Waring Gray & Hamann Bell et al.

Percent of GNLCC Suitable in Climate, Reference Period to 2100

A2 Scenario

Change in Spatial Patterns A2 Scenario

Vulnerability Assessment Based on Potential ImpactTime Period Metric Units Vulnerability RankingCurrent Period

Area of suitable habitat Percent of study area 5: Very high (<10% of area)4: High (10<30% of area)3: Medium (30<50% of area)2: Low (50<75% of area)1: Very low (>=75% of area)

Late century (e.g., 2070-2090)

Loss of reference-period suitable habitat

Percent loss of area from the reference period

5: Very high (>75%)4: High (>50-75%)3: Medium (>30-50%)2: Low (>10-30%)1: Very low (<=10%)

Naturally colonizable newly suitable habitat by 2070-2090

% gain in suitable habitat <=30 km from ref suitable)

0: very low gain (0<10%)-1: low gain (10<50%)-2: mod gain (50<100%)-3: large gain (100<150%)-4: very large gain (>=150%)

Newly suitable habitat by 2070-2090 requiring assisted migration

Percent gain in suitable habitat >30 km from ref suitable)

0: low gain (0<20%)-1: mod gain (20<100%)-2: large gain (>100%)

Vulnerability Assessment Based on Potential Impact

Average among studies for A2

scenario

Habitat Suitability Modeling: Greater YellowstoneMethods

Chang et al. 2014; Piekielek et al. in review

Response Data2,569 data points from FIA, GYCC, WLIS, GYRN I&M

Predictor Data• PRISM climate (19 variables)• Monthly water balance using Thornthwaite equation (10

variables)• Parent material, topography (10 variables)

SpeciesSagebrush spp., Juniper spp. Limber pine, Aspen, Douglas fir, Lodgepole Pine, Subalpine fir, Engleman spruce, Whitebark pine

Analyses• NC CSC Software for Assisted Habitat Modeling (SAHM)

VisTrails package• Boosted Regression Trees, Logistic Regression, Multivariate

Adaptive Regression Splines, and Random Forest• Model validation based on ROC for withheld data

GCMs• Best 9 CHIP5 GCMs

Random Forests

WBP Suitability under 9 GCMs

Greater YellowstoneDouglas fir

Suitable to Suitable

Suitable to Unsuitable

Unsuitable to suitable

N

2010 – 2100RCP 8.5 scenario

Greater YellowstoneJuniper





Greater YellowstoneLodgepole pine




YNP Photo Archives


Greater YellowstoneSubalpine fir





Greater YellowstoneWhitebark Pine

RCP 8.5 scenario

N

2010

Prob. Presence > 0.42


RCP 8.5 scenario

N

2040



RCP 8.5 scenario

N

2070



RCP 8.5 scenario

N

2099



RCP 8.5 scenario

N

2099

% 1950-80 Suitable Habitat2010 2099

RCP 4.5 91.3 17.8RCP 8.5 91.3 3.0


Climate Envelope Modeling Conclusions

In the Northern Rockies and Yellowstone, subalpine forests are high in vulnerability to climate change and lower treeline forests are pushed substantially upslope.

These results might suggest that upper and lower treeline forests are least resilient to climate change, beetles, fire.

In these zones of forest decline, ecosystem services relating to snowpack, runoff, and food and habitat for other species will be reduced.

Climate suitability for tree species is an important filter for prioritizing research and management.

YNP Photo Archives

Collaborative Approach to Climate Adaptation

John Gross, NPS Climate ScientistBen Bobowski, Chief of Resources, Rocky

Mountain National Park

Glick et al. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon.

MSU and UM: Andrew Hansen, Tom Olliff, Cathy Whitlock et al. GYCC WBP Subcommittee: Karl Buermeyer, Kelly McClosky, Dan Reinhart, Kristen Legg

Informing implementation of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee’s Whitebark Pine Strategy based on climate sciences

Funding: North Central Climate Sciences Center

Management Implications for Whitebark Pine

Core Habitat. Manage to retain the species in these vitally important zones.

Future habitat. Manage for natural colonization and assisted colonization.

Deteriorating Habitat.• Give up? • Manage towards Scenarios of

Viability?

RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5

Adaptive Management Opportunities

MSU and UM: Andrew Hansen, Tom Olliff, Cathy Whitlock et al.

GYCC WBP Subcommittee: Karl Buermeyer, Kelly McClosky, Dan Reinhart, Kristen Legg

Informing implementation of the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee’s Whitebark Pine Strategy based on climate sciences

Funding: North Central Climate Sciences Center

1. Ecological forecasting under alternative IPCC climate and land use scenarios.

2. Analyzing WBP response to climate and extreme climate events over the past 15,000 years.

3. Develop spatially explicit WBP management alternatives.

4. Evaluate the management alternatives under future climate scenarios:

• WBP goals• Ecosystem services derived from

WBP• Cost of implementation.

5. Draw recommendations for implementation of the GYCC WBP strategy under climate change.

Objectives

Workshop Prospectus

Vegetation Vulnerability across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Managing under Climate Change

Date and Venue April 9, 2015: USGS Science Center, Bozeman, MT

Objectives1. Synthesize results from the NASA Landscape Climate Change Vulnerability

Project (LCCVP)* study on climate change, ecological response, vulnerability assessment.

2. Identify management-relevant issues for vegetation in the GYE based on LCCVP, Northern Rockies Adaptation Partnership, Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, and related activities.

3. Attempt to “close the loop” on the Climate Smart Cycle by outlining approaches for developing/evaluating/implementing/monitoring climate adaptation strategies.

Acknowledgements

NASA Applied Sciences Program (Grant 10-BIOCLIM10-0034)

NSF EPSCoR Track-I EPS-1101342 (INSTEP 3)

NASA Land Cover Land Use Change Program

North Central Climate Sciences Center

Federal agency collaborators

Literature Cited

Hansen, A.J. and L.B. Phillips, 2015. Which tree species and biome types are most vulnerable to climate change in the US Northern Rocky Mountains?, Forest Ecology and Management, 338: pp. 68-83.

Chang, T., A.J. Hansen, N. Piekielek. 2014. Patterns and variability of projected bioclimate habitat for Pinus albicaulis in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. PLOS One. November 05, 2014.

Piekielek, N., A.J. Hansen, T. Chang. In Review. Using custom scientific workflow software and GIS to inform protected area climate adaptation planning across Greater Yellowstone. EcoInformatics.

Hansen, A.J., K. Ireland, K. Legg, E. Barge, M. Jenkis, M. Pillet. In Review. Can whitebark pine persist in Greater Yellowstone? Exploring Scenarios of Viability for species under deteriorating climates. Biological Conservation.

andy hansen montana state...

Documents