Putting climate adaptation on the map: developing spatial management strategies for whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Progress Report
Dates
Acquisition
2016-12-29
Summary
Forest ecosystems are increasingly showing the impacts of climate change. Natural resource managers face the need to develop management strategies to adapt to projected future climates. Various frameworks for developing climate adaptation strategies exist, but there are few that detail where to place management actions in the landscape to be most effective under anticipated future climate conditions. We developed an approach to spatially allocate climate adaptation actions across heterogeneous landscapes and applied the method to the case of whitebark pine (WBP) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). WBP is expected to be vulnerable to climate-mediated shifts in suitable habitat, pests, pathogens, and fire. We first synthesized [...]
Summary
Forest ecosystems are increasingly showing the impacts of climate change. Natural resource managers face the need to develop management strategies to adapt to projected future climates. Various frameworks for developing climate adaptation strategies exist, but there are few that detail where to place management actions in the landscape to be most effective under anticipated future climate conditions. We developed an approach to spatially allocate climate adaptation actions across heterogeneous landscapes and applied the method to the case of whitebark pine (WBP) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). WBP is expected to be vulnerable to climate-mediated shifts in suitable habitat, pests, pathogens, and fire. We first synthesized previous studies to identify the potential direct and indirect effects of climate change on WBP. We then worked with an interagency team to identify management strategies and actions aimed at mitigating climate impacts. These management actions were spatially allocated across the GYE under two management strategies. One strategy was based on the criteria currently used by federal agencies in the GYE to place management actions. The other strategy placed actions based on projected climate suitability for WBP and on habitat suitability for competing tree species under three future climate scenarios and three time periods. We then compared the traditional and the climate informed strategies in terms of area treated, distribution of management actions across land allocation types, and projected climate suitability zones. We found that the spatial distribution of actions and area treated differ among the climate-informed and current management strategies, with more Wilderness areas prioritized for action under climate-informed management. The location of where to prioritize different actions shifted over time as climate conditions changed through time, highlighting the need to adapt management both spatially and temporally. Although uncertainty in future climate projections can be a major impediment to implementing adaptation actions, our climate-informed management strategies for the three different future climate scenarios agreed with one another across 0.06-0.22 of the study area. Additionally, climate-informed management strategies agreed with current management in 0.01-0.08 of the study area. Areas where current and climate-informed management strategies agree represent high priority areas for implementing management actions, where actions are most likely to be successful in the long-term and where current management allows for implementation. The locations where climate-informed strategies agree with one another but not with current management are potential locations for experimental testing and monitoring of management actions. Our method for prioritizing locations for climate-adaptation actions is applicable to any vulnerable species for which information regarding climate vulnerability and climate-mediated risk factors is available.
LC MAP - Landscape Conservation Management and Analysis Portal
Provenance
Data source
Input directly
Montana State University; USDA Forest Service Missoula Fire Science Lab; National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Division; Bitterroot National Forest; Great Northern LCC
