Renewable Resources: Forest Ecosystems

Renewable Resources: Forest Ecosystems

Original

Today

Frontier

Choices

Which seems the poorest choice?

http://www.cwbiodiesel.com/biodiesel/palm_oil.html

A

B

C

D

Time Appropriate Questions

• What do forest ecosystems provide?

• What is important or valuable?

• How do we conserve what is valuable?

• What approaches are available for defining what is important?

• What approaches are available for conserving?

• Are we kidding ourselves?

Forest Ecosystems Provide

• Fiber - paper and products• Fuel - cooking & heating• Water - quantity and quality (impervious surface)• Nutrient cycling• Ecosystem energetics (food chain)• Air - CO2 uptake, O2 release, pollutant removal• Climate stability (Biotic pumps, Running paper)• Biodiversity/habitat: plant and animal (wildlife)• Medicine and food products• Recreation/mental & social health

Reference: Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods (2006)

Ecosystem: A Human Construct

• Definition: An ecological system composed of living organisms (plants, animals, & microbes) and their nonliving environment.

• Ecosystems are characterized by:– Structure & function– Complexity– Interaction of the components– Change over time (e.g., disturbances, succession),

“young, mature, old.”

• Today, these functions must be spatially and temporally coordinated (legacy of land surveys and ownership).

Ecosystem threats

• Loss of habitat: Land-use change and irreversible conversion (fragmentation) (State of Washington land ownership map)

• Disruption of biogeochemical cycles (N,C,P) (elg., carbon cycle, fire, Running)

• Invasive or introduced exotic organisms• Toxins, pollutants, human wastes• Climate change (Lectures Bauman,

Battisti)

Preserving or Conserving Ecosystems: Approaches

• First, we identify specific species we want in our ecosystem (e.g., wolves, spotted owl, whitebark pine, etc.).

• Second, we identify a process we want to maintain (e.g., carbon fixation).

• Third: A more comprehensive or systems approach (examine 3 ideas).

Examine three different approaches

Whitebark Pine

Approach 1. Save a species!

Distribution & Importance of Whitebark Pine

Pinus albicaulis• High elevation pine• Large seed• Special relationship with a

bird• Important for other

animals• Keystone species in the

Rockies• Impacted by climate

change & invasive disease

Decline of Whitebark Pine• White pine blister rust:

Cronartium ribicola, is a rust fungus with two hosts.– All North American 5-

needled pines – Ribes spp. is its alternate

host.• Mountain pine beetle

– Fire suppression– Climate change

Situation

• Whitebark pine is likely to disappear.

• What are our choices?– Do nothing (its “natural”)– Remove the Ribes– Breed for resistance– Introduce resistant European/Russian

species– Selection and genetic engineering of the

endophyte.

2. Ensure a function!

Manage for Carbon Dioxide UptakeMonitor Experiment

• Goal: Use forest systems to take up CO2

• Unable to meet

• Techniques Used

• Kyoto Protocol: Canada

• Get credit for this carbon uptake

Methods of Study

Difficulties• Issues of scale (quality of info

vs. extent of info)• Monitoring• Unknowns (soil carbon)

Lessons from first 2 approaches

• Hard: Managing single species or process• Hard: What to measure, at what scale, how

often, etc. • Expensive: Techniques to measure (e.g.,

what is there now & how is it changing)• Expensive, boring: Monitoring• Knowledge: Understanding of interactions• Policies: Options defined by• Nature changes: forest fire, competition,

succession.

Third Approach

Work on maintaining “properly” functioning ecosystems

Valuing ecosystems

Key: Remember all the functions?

Three examples1. National Commission on

Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF)

2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program (MEA)

3. The Natural Capital Project

• Early warning assessment system that is– Rapid & cost effective

And that is based on• ‘Stand’ level sustainability (condition):

– Evaluated using indicators of ecosystem services &

– Matched against benchmarks

• Science based Does it work?• Indicators, benchmarks, scale, ok

http://www.ncseonline.org/NCSSF/page.cfm?FID=1426

1-

Ecosystem Goods and Services Cont.

• Definition of Ecosystem Goods and Services

• (2) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program

• (3) The Natural Capital Project

Older definition of Ecosystem goods and services

Ecosystem goods: Biophysical elements that are directly, or indirectly, consumed by humans

Ecosystem services: processes that produce, or support the production of, ecosystem goods (most involve some biogeochemical cycle).

The release of the MEA assessment was not big news, even though 60% of the 24 ecosystem services studied are degrading. Which of the following two factors below did the article suggest were responsible for the lack of a strong media reception?

8%

27%

8%

54%

3% 1. That the authors felt their reporting method was fine

2. That no fixes or solutions were provided

3. That human involvement was not evaluated.

4. That the MEA authors left the decision-making up to the decision-makers

5. That there were so many thick technical reports

Newer definition of Ecosystem goods and services

• Provisional services (e.g., food, fiber, fuelwood, biochemicals, genetic resources, and water)

• Cultural services (e.g., recreational, ecotourism, educational, sense of place, cultural heritage, spiritual, religious and other nonmaterial benefits).

• Supporting services (e.g., primary production, soil formation & nutrient cycling)

• Regulating services (e.g., water regulation [floods, irrigation], water purification, climate regulation, land degradation, and disease regulation)

Example of an Ecosystem Service• Soil provides the following

ecosystem services– Significant regulator of the hydrological

cycle– Shelters seeds, provides medium for

plant growth, provides physical support– Retains, delivers & derives nutrients– Significant role in decomposition– Contributes to cycling, retention &

regulation of major element cycles (N, P, C, S)

– Carbon storage & cycle– Role as a purifier (water, nutrients,

etc.)

2 - MEA Conceptual FrameworkGlobal

RegionalLocal

Human well-being & poverty reduction

Life on Earth: Biodiversity

Ecosystem Services

Indirect Drivers of Change• Demographic• Economic • Sociopolitical• Science & technology• Cultural & religious

Direct Drivers of Change• Changes in land use & land cover• Species removal or introductions • Technology• Climate change• Natural physical & biological drivers• External inputs

2 - MEA: Assessments & Publications

December 2005

2 - Pressures on Goals of MEA• Population Growth (P)• Economy, consumption (A)• Combined demand on natural resources• Land degradation & conversion• Invasive organisms• Climate change• Public Health (e.g., HIV, malaria, nutrition)• Template for evaluation• Political acceptance & will (and

consistency)

3 - Natural Capital Project

Joint project of• Nature Conservancy

• World Wildlife Fund

• The Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University

• Launched 31 October 2006

http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/about.html

QuickTime™ and a decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Earth, we have a problem

3 - Natural Capital Project

Statement

• The Problem: Destroy nature and you lose human-life support systems

• Their Solution: Ecosystems valued as precious natural assets

• A world of economic realism!• Requires new

– Scientific methods– Financial instruments– Government policies

3 - Natural Capital ProjectDetails:

• InVEST: Integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs

• Problem definition approach• Scale• Economic • Biophysical

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.QuickTime™ and a

decompressorare needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

• Natural capital ≠ human capital (back to the lecture on ethics)

• Just a fancy cost - benefit analysis• Implementation (e.g., REDD [reducing

emissions for deforestation and degradation])

• Placing a value on nature• Alternative: Nature = 0.

3 - Natural Capital ProjectCritique:

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/04/the_market_force_of_nature.php

Conclusion: Difficulties

• Setting limits and distributing responsibility

• Scale & variable (s)

• Measurement

• Monitoring

• Assessment

• Regulation

• Outcomes and Feedback

• Choices

• Political will = f (human will)

Orphaned Slides

• Perhaps some of the slides have additional info that might be valuable.

Whitebark Pine: Ecological Importance

• Hardy subalpine conifer, tolerates poor soils, steep slopes, windy exposures.

• Often the tree line species• Keystone species (Rocky Mountain

Region)– Food source - birds, small mammals & bears– Often colonizes a site, facilitates succession &

promotes diversity– Regulates runoff, reduces soil erosion

Picture: C.J. Earle

• Mission: to advance the science and practice of biodiversity conservation and forest sustainability

• Critical Question: How does an owner or manager of forest land tell whether biodiversity and sustainability are being positively, negatively or neutrally affected by management practices and decisions?

• Or: Is your land ‘good’, changing, & changing in what direction?

http://www.ncseonline.org/NCSSF/page.cfm?FID=1426

Does it works in practice• Functions, variables and benchmark

levels can be defined• A sampling scheme has been

designed & tested• Evaluation is then a comparison of

values and changes in values.• Subsequent decisions are then based

on goals and objectives set by land owner.

Does it work?

• Perhaps (actually data from urban to rural land

• Weakness:– Assumes that the indicators are correct and

respond in a measurable & timely way– Assumes that we can react fast enough.– Does not link objectives over large areas of

land.

• Clearly better than nothing

MEA Goals• Identify options that can better achieve core human

development and sustainability goals.– Recognize & meet growing demands for food, clean

water, health, and employment.– Balance economic growth and social development

with environmental conservation.

• Better understand trade-offs involved—across stakeholders—in decisions concerning the environment.

• Rather than issue by issue, use a multi-sectoral approach

• Match response options with appropriate level of governance

Well-Being Defined (MEA)•Security: Ability to

– a. live in an environmentally clean and safe shelter– b. reduce vulnerability to ecological shocks & stress.

•Basic material for a good life: Ability to access resources to earn income and gain a livelihood•Health: Clean water, air, adequate nourishment, adequate energy for temperature regulation, good health•Good social relations•Freedom & Choice

Yangjuan Village• Apparently intensive use of the land• Is the use sustainable? And how does land

use reflect and affect the inhabitants?

• Idea of eco-political tsunamis

Yangjuan Land useTraditional Buckwheat Firewood

Livestock

Conversion from local land race of corn to new hybrid corn