| parts | | type | Technical Summary |
|---|
| value | Project Need Alaska’s high-latitude setting places it at the front lines of environmental change (Walsh et al 2008, Wolken et al. 2011). Rising temperatures, altered precipitation regimes, and associated shifts in growing degree days, summer season length, and the timing of spring thaw and autumn frost are among the factors rapidly altering natural ecosystems and agricultural opportunities (Wolken et al. 2011, Swenson 2013). The ability of Alaskans to predict these changes will profoundly affect their ability to adapt. The State of Alaska recognizes the scope and magnitude of these changes and has made it a priority to ensure Alaskan communities and managers incorporate anticipated change into local and regional planning. This is also a goal of the University of Alaska (UA), which seeks to apply and advance its expertise in climate science and landscape ecology to better understand the manner by which these changes affect ecosystems, food webs and human populations. Currently, agriculture in Alaska is climate-limited. Sparrow et al. (2007) note that primary limitations include low heat energy, short growing seasons, and cold winters that prevent survival of perennial crops. Considerable research (e.g Holloway 1993, Van Veldhuizen and Knight 2004, Rader 2006, Caster 2011) has gone into assessing how to overcome some of these limitations, particularly in the context of food security. But the scientific consensus suggests that climate change is already altering the equation, and will continue to do so (Juday et al, 2005). Hatch (2011) found that climate projections show that future growing conditions in the Fairbanks North Star Borough may be more similar to northern prairies in the lower 48 states. Sparrow et al. (2007) found that increases in growing degree days (GDD) could cause crop production to advance northward throughout the century, with increases in yields and new varieties becoming viable. However, their results also suggested that water stress may become an increasing problem. Swenson (2013) examined the relationship between air temperature, soil temperature and growing season length in agricultural management systems in Interior Alaska. She found that usable degree-days were projected to increase from 33-70% by 2100, and concluded that this might increase food security, but only if future planning incorporates culturally appropriate planning and support. Meanwhile, for some crops, climate change may not be positive. For example, burgeoning peony markets are dependent on Alaska’s relatively cool climate and late summer season. Currently available tools are limited in their ability to help Alaska’s farmers adjust to climate change. USDA hardiness zones are relatively fine-scale within Alaska, but are based only on extreme winter temperature; thus, they serve as a reliable metric only for plants affected and limited by winter extremes. Indicator plants, as defined by the USDA, help capture some of the nuances of range limits. But with ongoing climate change, both winter extremes and indicator species may shift and change. Moreover, for many species, particularly annual crops, other climate indicators are likely to provide more pertinent hardiness information. Outside of the winter season, variables such as day length, thaw dates, freeze dates, growing season length, and occurrence of extreme heat may all affect whether a species may be appropriate to a particular location. Even in terms of winter hardiness alone, existing zones do not take into account the depth and variability of insulating snow cover, soil moisture, humidity, likelihood of rain on snow event, and the likely length of the cold snap which generates winter lows – all of which can greatly affect plant survival. The proposed project directly aligns with the stated goals of the USDA Northwest Climate Hub, which aims to “deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and Native American tribes that will help them to adapt to climate change.” Only via clear communication with a wide range of stakeholders can climate change assessments adequately address real-world concerns. Moreover, a meaningful assessment must take into account both positive and negative potential changes, including new opportunities and new stressors. |
|---|
|
|---|
