Integrating Climate Change into Landscape Planning Modeling climate and management interactions within the ILAP framework April 23, 2013 Jessica Halofsky Emilie Henderson

Modeling “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.” – Box & Draper 1987 “It’s Only a Model.” – Patsy, 1975

Projects behind today’s talks Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP) – Climate Change Module – Central Oregon Study Area Climate, Management and Habitat

How might climate and land management interact to shape vegetation and habitat? Coastal Washington Southwest OregonSoutheast Oregon Northern Spotted Owl Greater Sage Grouse

Management Current Management Restoration Natural Resources Economy Climate Hadley (Hot/Dry) MIROC (Hot/Wet) CSIRO (Warm/Moist) Scenarios

General Topics for today’s talk: Starting conditions STMs without climate Climate impacts modeling

Modeling Strata

The overall picture: Not locally precise. Useful for describing landscape-to regional trends.

Current Vegetation GNN = Gradient Nearest Neighbor – A spatial depiction of the FIA plots. – Structured by an ordination model. Gives us information on current vegetation within each modeling stratum. Janet Ohmann, Matthew Gregory, Heather Roberts

General Topics Starting Conditions State Transition Modeling, without accounting for climate Climate impacts modeling

State and Transition Modeling Early Successional Young Forest Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Growth Fire Regeneration Harvest

State and Transition Modeling: Dry Douglas-fir Grass-Forb Giant Trees Moderate Canopy Multi-Layered Pole-stage, single-story, post-disturbance

ILAP Potential Vegetation Types PROBLEM: Basic framework assumes that this map doesn’t change. When climate shifts, so will potential vegetation.

State and Transition Modeling Early Successional Young Forest Mature Forest Late Successional Old Growth Growth Fire Regeneration Harvest

Estimated harvests from the LANDSAT record in Southwest Oregon Thanks to Robert Kennedy for the LandTrendr maps of disturbance history

Current Fire PROBLEM: Fire regimes are set to resemble the recent past. They will probably change with shifting climate. Extracted from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity dataset: mtbs.gov

Preliminary results for Southwestern Oregon: Current management Area with Large and Giant Trees No Climate Change

General Topics Starting Conditions State Transition Modeling, without accounting for climate Climate impacts modeling – ILAP extension – Central Oregon Study Area

What about climate change? Climate controls ecosystem processes, including: – Plant establishment, growth, and mortality – Disturbance Drought Fire Insect outbreaks

Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs): Link state-of-the-art knowledge of: – plant physiology – biogeography – biogeochemistry – biophysics Simulate changes in vegetation structure and composition and ecosystem function through time

*adapted from: Bachelet, D., J. M. Lenihan, C. Daly, R. P. Neilson, D. S. Ojima, and W. J. Parton MC1: A Dynamic Vegetation Model for Estimating the Distribution of Vegetation and Associated Ecosystem Fluxes of Carbon, Nutrients, and Water. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-508. biomass mortality nutrient loss and release Biogeography Biogeochemistry Fire fire occurrence lifeform mixture carbon pools soil moisture lifeform mixture live biomass (MAPSS)(CENTURY) (MCFire) The MC1 Dynamic Global Vegetation Model

A Linked Model Approach Dry Mixed Conifer Xeric Ponderosa Pine Juniper woodland Moist Mixed Conifer MC1 STMs

Central Oregon Study Area

Historical vegetation in the study area

Vegetation type crosswalks MC1 Functional Vegetation TypeSTM Potential Vegetation Type Subalpine forest Mountain hemlock and subalpine fir forests Cool needle-leaved forest Moist mixed conifer and white fir forests Temperate needle-leaved forest Ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and dry mixed conifer forests Temperate needle-leaved woodland Mountain big sage – western juniper woodland and shrubland Temperate shrubland Wyoming big sage shrubland Xeromorphic shrubland Salt desert shrubland Temperate grassland Bluebunch wheatgrass – Sandberg bluegrass grassland Warm-season grassland

Climate Scenarios

MC1 Functional Vegetation Type Projections MIROC CSIRO Hadley Halofsky et al. in review

MC1 fire projections MIROCCSIRO Hadley Halofsky et al. in prep

Linked model results MIROC CSIRO Hadley Halofsky et al. in prep

Central Oregon Management Scenarios Fire suppression only – Fire frequencies same as the last 25 years under fire suppression – No other active management Resilience – Light to moderate levels of thinning and some prescribed fire in dry forest types

Effects of management on dry forests Fire suppression only Resilience Mean Min to max Randomly selected simulations Halofsky et al. in prep

Fire suppression only Resilience Halofsky et al. in prep Effects of management on: dry forests with large trees and open canopy

Landscape proportion Fire suppression only Resilience Trends in dry forest structure <12.7 cm cm >50.8 cm

Conclusions for Central Oregon Linked DGVM-STM output suggests greater vegetation resilience than DGVM alone. Dry ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests will likely maintain dominance in the central Oregon study area. In some cases, management may dampen the magnitude of forest change under changing climate. Halofsky et al. in prep

Technical Thoughts All models are wrong, ours could be useful These models provide big-picture projections The linked model process is data-, labor-, and software-intensive

Getting to Landscape Planning We haven’t described the planning process itself, which involves conversations and people. – Stakeholders – Decision Makers Our models are useful storytelling tools. – Enable the asking of questions. – Realistic and plausible stories. – Enhance the role of science in conversations about planning.

Half of science is asking the right questions. -- Roger Bacon (c – 1294) 1 Emilie, you really need to refine your questions! -- Dr. David Mladenoff, numerous times throughout my career as a PhD student in his lab. 1 Wikiquotes

What activities? e.g., partial harvest regeneration harvest restoration harvest prescribed fire At what rates? Where should they be applied? Groups we have spoken with: The Nature Conservancy Bureau of Land Management US Forest Service personnel – regional and local Local chapters of the Society of American Foresters Washington Department of Natural Resources Oregon Department of Forestry Consulting foresters who serve nonindustrial private landowners County commissioners 4 activities 24 ownership/allocation categories ∞ variations in rates

Save the world! Our Hope for our Work Tell informative stories that are grounded in science about how different landscape management policies and plans may lead to different futures. Relevance and credibility beyond the science community.

Funding: Dominique Bachelet Emilie Henderson David Conklin James Kagan Megan Creutzburg Becky Kerns Jessica Halofsky Anita Morzillo Joshua Halofsky Janine Salwasser Miles Hemstrom Research Team: