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
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
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
Suitable to Suitable
Suitable to Unsuitable
Unsuitable to suitable
2010 – 2100RCP 8.5 scenario
Greater YellowstoneLodgepole pine
Suitable to Suitable
Suitable to Unsuitable
Unsuitable to suitable
YNP Photo Archives
2010 – 2100RCP 8.5 scenario
Greater YellowstoneSubalpine fir
Suitable to Suitable
Suitable to Unsuitable
Unsuitable to suitable
2010 – 2100RCP 8.5 scenario
Greater YellowstoneWhitebark Pine
RCP 8.5 scenario
N
2010
Prob. Presence > 0.42
Greater YellowstoneWhitebark Pine
RCP 8.5 scenario
N
2040
Prob. Presence > 0.42
Greater YellowstoneWhitebark Pine
RCP 8.5 scenario
N
2070
Prob. Presence > 0.42
Greater YellowstoneWhitebark Pine
RCP 8.5 scenario
N
2099
Prob. Presence > 0.42
Greater YellowstoneWhitebark Pine
RCP 8.5 scenario
N
2099
% 1950-80 Suitable Habitat2010 2099
RCP 4.5 91.3 17.8RCP 8.5 91.3 3.0
Prob. Presence > 0.42
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
Adaptive Management Opportunities
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.