Making Vegetation Model Projections Usable for Managers Dominique M. Bachelet and Ken Ferschweiler, Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, OR David Conklin, Common Futures, Corvallis, OR ESA 97th Annual Meeting, Portland, OR Tuesday, Aug 7th, 2012, 4:40 pm with support from

USFS PNW Research Station funding and colleagues: Ron Neilson, Jim Lenihan, Ray Drapek, Miles Hemstrom, Becky Kerns WWETAC funding ARRA funding through the ILAP project managed by INR WA State DNR: Josh Halofsky OSU: John Bolte, Kellie Vache, James Sulzman USGS funding University of Washington: Jessica Halofsky CBI colleagues: Jim Strittholt et al. Thanks to funders and colleagues

Making veg model results useful: a progress report Making results visible - Data Basin Making results handy to manipulate - Envision Adapting USFS state-and-transition models to climate change Deriving ecologically-meaningful outputs: wildlife habitat characteristics, forest vigor index

Vegetation models static biogeography models: MAPSS, 1995 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs): MC1, 2001; MC2/Envision, 2012 EPA -> USFS/OSU -> USFS/OSU/CBI/Common Futures

MC1 Vegetation projections Conterminous US: VEMAP (Bachelet et al. 2001) North America: VINCERA (Bachelet et al. 2008, Lenihan et al. 2008) Global: Gonzalez et al California: Lenihan et al. 2003, 2008; Shaw et al Alaska: Bachelet et al Pacific Northwest: Rogers et al Yosemite: Panek et al. 2009; Conklin 2010 Wind Cave NP: Bachelet et al. 2000, King et al. in prep 2012 AZ-NM, OR-WA: Hemstrom et al. in review 2012

fire

Informing State-and-Transition Models Willamette Valley project - Gabe Yospin’s work WWETAC VDDT project - National Forests in eastern Oregon and Arizona Western Washington project

MC1 ➜ STM example: WWETAC VDDT project

from: Hemstrom, M.A., J.E. Halofsky, D.R. Conklin, J.S. Halofsky, B.K. Kerns, and D. Bachelet. 201x. Assessing potential climate change effects on vegetation using a linked dynamic vegetation and state-and-transition model approach. Ecological Applications. In review. MC1 ➜ ST M

More ecologically- meaningful results Exchanging grid cells for better spatial units: watersheds, topographic facets, soil patches,... Deriving management-oriented outputs: wildlife habitat characteristics, forest vigor index,...

4km pixels in ArcMap HUC5 watersheds in Envision

Starting closer to the beginning: using input data in ecologically- meaningful spatial units example: MAPSS on Envision using spatial units from Wieslander veg survey

Yosemite ca Wieslander Vegetation Survey Wieslander data from Jim Thorne, UC Davis

AGU Fall Meeting 2011 poster B21B-0261

Wildlife habitat characteristics next 4 slides are from Jim Strittholt’s recent presentation of the results from the CBI Yale Framework project: using MC1 results as inputs to MAXENT model to simulate climate change impacts on wildlife habitat

Relationships Between Vegetation, Climate, Martens and Fishers Martens: High elevation Red fir Deep snows Fishers: Mid elevation Mixed coniferous- hardwoods Less snow Both: Downslope shifts in winter Interaction: Fishers kill martens where they co- occur W. Spencer

MaxEnt Modeling 10km4km800m 10km4km800m MC1 Global Vegetation ModelClimate Drivers 10km4km 800m

Fisher Models: Percent Variable Contributions & AUC

forest vigor index concept from Waring & Pitman 1980 VIGOR = wood/LAI more MPB attacks where vigor is low Model simulates wood production and leaf C is translated into LAI – we can estimate vigor and relate it to vulnerability to pest outbreaks Larsson et al. 1983

Making veg model results useful: a progress report Access to veg model results – Data Basin - Working with veg model results – Envision - envision.bioe.orst.edu Using veg model results in STM models Ecologically-meaningful inputs and outputs Land managers, how can we be useful to you?