Putting climate adaptation on the map: developing spatial management strategies for whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Dates
Publication Date
2017
Citation
Kathryn B Ireland, Andrew J Hansen, Robert E Keane, Kristin Legg, and Robert L Gump, 2017, Putting climate adaptation on the map: developing spatial management strategies for whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Summary
Natural resource managers face the need to develop strategies to adapt to projected future climates. Few existing climate adaptation frameworks prescribe where to place management actions to be most effective under anticipated future climate conditions. We developed an approach to spatially allocate climate adaptation actions and applied the method to whitebark pine (WBP; Pinus albicaulis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). WBP is expected to be vulnerable to climate-mediated shifts in suitable habitat, pests, pathogens, and fire. We worked with a team of biologists and managers to identify management actions aimed at mitigating climate impacts to WBP. Identified actions were spatially allocated across the GYE under two [...]
Summary
Natural resource managers face the need to develop strategies to adapt to projected future climates. Few existing climate adaptation frameworks prescribe where to place management actions to be most effective under anticipated future climate conditions. We developed an approach to spatially allocate climate adaptation actions and applied the method to whitebark pine (WBP; Pinus albicaulis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). WBP is expected to be vulnerable to climate-mediated shifts in suitable habitat, pests, pathogens, and fire. We worked with a team of biologists and managers to identify management actions aimed at mitigating climate impacts to WBP. Identified actions were spatially allocated across the GYE under two management strategies: (1) current management and (2) climate-informed management which used projected climate suitability for WBP and competing tree species to place management actions. The current management strategy reflected current legal, policy and access contraints, such as restricting active management in Wilderness and remote locations, while the climate-informed management strategy was designed to maximize preservation of WBP forests regardless of such constraints. Thus, the climate-informed strategy highlighted how the spatial location of management actions might need to shift to most effectively maintain WBP forests under future climate conditions. The spatial distribution of actions and area treated differed among the current and climate-informed management strategies, with 33-60% more wilderness area prioritized for action under climate-informed management. High priority areas for implementing management actions include the 1-8% of the GYE where current and climate-informed management agreed, since this is where actions are most likely to be successful in the long-term and where current management permits implementation. Areas where climate-informed strategies agreed with one another but not with current management (6-22% of the GYE) are potential locations for experimental testing and monitoring of management actions. Our method for prioritizing locations for climate-adaptation actions is applicable to any species for which information regarding climate vulnerability and climate-mediated risk factors is available.
