Transcript Andrews LTER Central Question

The Andrews LTER program has
been guided by a common Central
Question for over a decade:
How do land use, natural disturbances,
and climate change affect three key
sets of ecosystem services: carbon and
nutrient dynamics, biodiversity, and
hydrology?
In LTER6 we will maintain this central
question, with a few modifications:
• emphasis on climate change/climate variability as a driver
• inclusion of the influence of topography on relationships
between drivers and responders
• connection of the natural science and the human domain via
ecosystem services, and feedbacks from human domain to the
natural sciences
• emphasis on of multiple interactions among drivers and
responders and system feedbacks
This interpretation of the Central Question is illustrated in the following slide
Land Use
Disturbance
Climate
Drivers
Influences of topography
Hydrology
Biodiversity
Carbon and
Nutrient
Cycles
Ecosystem services
Responders
Human behavior
Note that in the previous slide, the “natural science”
interactions are congregated into a box. For now, for the
sake of communication, let’s call this the “natural science
box”.
The following slide shows the same conceptual
organization but provides additional specific details within
each of the main categories that we will focus on.
Disturbance
Land Use
floods; fire;
pathogens
insect pests
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
Drivers
Influences of topography
Biodiversity
Hydrology
streamflow amount,
timing and
temperature;
hillslope flowpaths
Carbon and
Nutrient
Cycles
Ecosystem services
wood production;
water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics &
recreation, other (tbd)
biodiversity;
biogeography;
genomics;
phenology
Responders
Human behavior
forest land management;
other public responses
(tbd)
Three Proposed Goals for LTER6:
1. Project future responses of biodiversity, hydrology and
carbon/nutrient cycles at Andrews under different climate
change scenarios, considering the influences of land use,
disturbance and topography.
2. Provide tools (models, demonstrations) to forest managers
to enhance sustainable forest management in alternate climate
scenarios; project feedbacks from forest management
alternatives on forest structure.
3. Develop a conceptual organization to connect ecosystem
services from mid-Cascades forests to the human societies in
the McKenzie and Willamette Valleys under climate
change/land use change/disturbance scenarios and conduct
pilot work to promote additional funding from other sources.
Note that the spatial domain of Goal 1 is primarily the Andrews Forest; the
spatial domain of Goal 2 is primarily the Blue River basin (and to some extent,
the entire Willamette National Forest); the spatial domain of Goal 3 is all of the
above plus the McKenzie and Willamette Valleys.
In order to translate this conceptual organization into units that can be
developed for a proposal, and subsequently into components of a six-year
project, we will organize interdisciplinary working groups. (Or if we were to call
them “working interdisciplinary groups” they could be wigs. Hmm. Well, your
creativity in coming up with good acronyms here and elsewhere is welcome!)
Six permanent working groups and one temporary working group are proposed
and described in the following slides. (Four working groups for Goal 1, one for
Goal 2, and one for Goal 3; the temporary group is needed to establish climate
scenarios). It is important to recognize that from the perspective of the overall
concept, these units are artificial – the concept is an integrated whole, not a
bunch of units. But everybody can’t do everything …
The six working groups described here will likely change somewhat with time
based on our discussions in the coming weeks. We will be asking people to
“self assign” to the working groups. People are invited, indeed encouraged, to
participate in more than one working group.
Also note that
1. It will be essential to maintain fluid communication among
working groups. So all of the working groups will need to
identify members who are willing to report to and
communicate with other groups.
2. Some working groups may break into smaller sub units
3. Specific research questions are not specified here. We’ve
already generated a lot of terrific questions – the next stage
will be for working groups to refine sets of
questions/objectives/hypotheses, and then we’ll share,
discuss and modify as whole group to establish harmonious
linkages.
The temporary, climate scenario working group:
As a starting point for this work we need to establish a set of
alternate climate change/climate variability scenarios that
will be a basis for most of the rest of what we do. These
could be developed from “downscaling” of IPCC scenarios
or from arbitrarily picking 2 or more different possible future
scenarios involving chanage in precipitation/ change in
temperature.
For the proposal writing, we need to recruit a small team who
is willing to work on the development of these scenarios.
This work needs to be done quickly.
Goal 1.
Project future responses of biodiversity, hydrology and
carbon/nutrient cycles at Andrews under different
climate change scenarios, considering the influences
of land use, disturbance and topography.
FOUR PROPOSED WORKING GROUPS
Theses groups are defined by linkages among components in the
“natural sciences” box. They are illustrated in the following figures
as
LTER6 working group
Disturbance
#1:
floods; fire;
influence
of topog.
pathogens
and landinsect
usepests
(via
forest structure) on
r’ships between
macroclimate and
microclimate;
influence of
microclimate on
biodiversity &
phenology
Hydrology
streamflow amount,
timing and
temperature;
hillslope flowpaths
Land Use
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Drivers
Influences of topography
Biodiversity
Carbon and
Nutrient
Cycles
Ecosystem services
wood production;
water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics &
recreation, other (tbd)
biodiversity;
biogeography;
genomics;
phenology
Responders
Human behavior
forest land management;
other public responses
(tbd)
LTER6 working group
Disturbance
#2: impacts
of climate
floods; fire;
change/variability
pathogens and
insectof
pests
interception
aerosols
on hydrology and
carbon/nutrient cycling
Land Use
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Drivers
Influences of topography
Biodiversity
Hydrology
streamflow amount,
timing and
temperature;
hillslope flowpaths
Carbon and
Nutrient
Cycles
Ecosystem services
wood production;
water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics &
recreation, other (tbd)
biodiversity;
biogeography;
genomics;
phenology
Responders
Human behavior
forest land management;
other public responses
(tbd)
Disturbance
Land Use
floods; fire;
pathogens
insect pests
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
Drivers
Influences of topography
Biodiversity
LTER6 working
group #3:
Hydrology
Interactions
among
climate
streamflow
amount,
Carbon and
timing and variability,
change/climate
temperature;
Nutrient
biodiversity,
and
hillslope flowpaths
Cycles
disturbance events
(emphasizing
disturbance/biodiversity
Ecosystem
services
feedbacks in a
background
wood production;
of climate change
and
water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics &
topographic variability)
recreation, other (tbd)
biodiversity;
biogeography;
genomics;
phenology
Responders
Human behavior
forest land management;
other public responses
(tbd)
Disturbance
floods; fire;
pathogens
insect pests
Land Use
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Drivers
Influences of topography
Biodiversity
Hydrology
streamflow amount,
timing and
temperature;
hillslope flowpaths
Carbon and
Nutrient
Cycles
biodiversity;
biogeography;
genomics;
phenology
Responders
Human behavior
Ecosystem services
forest land management;
production;
LTER6 wood
working
group #4: integrated model produces
projections
other
public
responses
water
quality/quantity;
forest
aesthetics
&
of forest
future
based on
climate
scenarios
– incorporates
(tbd)
recreation, other (tbd)
information/concepts from groups 1-3.
Goal 2.
Provide tools (models, demonstrations) to forest
managers to enhance sustainable forest management
in alternate climate scenarios; project feedbacks from
forest management alternatives on forest structure.
ONE PROPOSED WORKING GROUP
Disturbance
floods; fire;
pathogens
insect pests
Land Use
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Drivers
Influences of topography
LTER6 working group #5:
Management applications and
Biodiversity
Hydrology implications (working group 5 probably
biodiversity;
streamflow amount,
functions as a collaboration
biogeography;
timing and
between working
genomics;
Carbon group
and 4 and
temperature;
phenology
silviculturists/managers
hillslope flowpaths
Nutrient
Cycles
Responders
Ecosystem services
Human behavior
wood production;
water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics &
recreation, other (tbd)
forest land management;
other public responses
(tbd)
Goal 3.
Develop a conceptual organization to connect
ecosystem services from mid-Cascades forests to the
human societies in the McKenzie and Willamette
Valleys under climate change/land use
change/disturbance scenarios and conduct pilot work
to promote additional funding from other sources.
ONE PROPOSED WORKING GROUP
Disturbance
floods; fire;
pathogens
insect pests
Land Use
Climate
amount, timing and
phase of precip;
Average and variability
in temperature
forest structure &
age/species; albedo;
interception
Drivers
of topography
LTER6Influences
working group
#6:
Conceptual development of linkages
Hydrology between climate change/climate Biodiversity
biodiversity;
variability, ecosystem services, and
streamflow amount,
biogeography;
timing and
human behavior. ESSENTIAL TO genomics;
Carbon and
temperature;
HAVE
BOTH
NATURAL SCIENTISTS
phenology
hillslope flowpaths
Nutrient
AND SOCIAL SCIENTISTS IN THIS
Cycles
Responders
GROUP!
Ecosystem services
Human behavior
wood production;
water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics &
recreation, other (tbd)
forest land management;
other public responses
(tbd)
Summary of groups – one temporary “climate scenario” group plus:
1. influence of topography and forest structure on microclimate; influence of
microclimate on biodiversity & phenology
2. impacts of climate change/variability and interception of aerosols on
hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycling
3. Interactions among climate change/climate variability, biodiversity, and
disturbance events (might also include the subsequent impacts of
disturbance events on hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycles
4. integrated model produces projections of forest future based on climate
scenarios
5. Management applications and implications
6. Conceptual development of linkages among climate change/climate
variability, ecosystem services, and human behavior.
The next step: Anyone who is interested in working to develop the
concepts and research plans for this proposal is WELCOME to
participate.
You do not have to attend the monthly meetings in order to participate.
We’ll try to set up ways so that the working groups can incorporate
participants remotely, and so that only a subset of members from working
groups will have to participate in monthly meetings. It would be very
helpful, however, if as many people as possible attend the second half of
monthly meetings in March, April and May.
If you are interested in participating, please contact us
([email protected] and [email protected])
as soon as you can to let us know how you’d like to be involved.
In the second half of the next monthly meeting (10-11 am, Friday April 5,
Richardson 313) we will briefly discuss the organization described in this
powerpoint presentation, and then we will break into working groups. The
working groups will be given assignments to develop specific questions
and preliminary ideas for research plans to share at the following monthly
meeting.
• Friday, March 17: Distribute information about organization and working groups
to PIs (modification of the ppt shared with exec team). Ask people to notify us
about their interest in specific groups. Fine tune group organizations based on
feedback
• April 6 monthly meeting: brief overview of LTER 6 organization. Working
groups meet separately. Assignment for the next monthly meeting: 1. Identify
group leader/s. 2. Identify reporters to attend and report back at monthly
meetings. 3. Develop first cut for research goals and questions (or specific
objectives. ) 4. Consider how existing infrastructure and data can be used to
answer questions. 5. Consider how/whether a common transect might be useful
to answer questions/accomplish objectives
• month of April: working groups meet and communicate. (reports posted on
LTER6 web site).
• May 6 monthly meeting: Reports from working groups. Compare/contrast
group questions/objectives, starting with synthesis/modeling group. Suggest
modifications to make sure synthesis can be accomplished. Develop plans to
maintain communications between groups. Consider whether common transect
will be useful and make a decision to go ahead or not. Assignment for next
monthly meeting: revise objectives/questions. Develop details for work plan
(within rough budget guidelines, which will be given).