Wisconsin Natural Community Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Vulnerability Determination Process

Transcription

1 Wisconsin Natural Community Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments Vulnerability Determination Process The process used to determine vulnerability combined published literature, climate and species distribution models, and an expert panel to assess potential climate impacts, inherent adaptive capacity, and overall vulnerability of 52 natural communities in Wisconsin. Both the process and the explanation be closely fol the methods developed, tested, and used extensively by the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station for Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessments for forests across the Great Lakes Region as well as Central Hardwoods and Central Appalachian regions (e.g., Janowiak et al., 2014) 1. The resulting information was synthesized into Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments (CCVAs) for each natural community. EXPERT PANEL PROCESS To assess vulnerabilities to climate change for each natural community type, we divided a list of priority upland and non-aquatic wetland natural communities into nine groups. Communities were deemed a priority if they were widespread across the state, of management interest, or harbored significant numbers of rare species. Communities that already had a significant amount of recent information about their vulnerability (e.g., northern forests covered in the Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment for northern Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan 1 ) were deemed er priorities and were not assessed in this effort. A list of all communities assessed, their respective workshop group, and vulnerability assessment results is presented in Table 1 of Appendix A. Ten one-day, in-person workshops were held across Wisconsin, each focusing on a different broad natural community group (Figure 1). For each workshop, we elicited input from a panel of experts representing a variety of land management and research organizations across Wisconsin. We sought teams of panelists who would be able to contribute a diversity of subject area expertise, knowledge of management history, and organizational perspectives. Most panelists had extensive knowledge about the ecology, management, and climate change impacts on the natural communities that were the focus of a given workshop. Workshops were held at a variety of locations across Wisconsin based on the geography of the communities and panelists between October 2014 and January Be we describe the structured discussion process that the panel used. Figure 1. Locations of workshops across Wisconsin and community group focus. Initial Natural Community Assessments For these assessments, the natural community types fol the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) natural community classification. 4 For each natural community type, we summarized available information from the relevant ecological literature related to the major system drivers (ecological processes), dominant and characteristic species, and stressors that characterize that community. For each driver, species, or stressor, potential impacts from climate change were summarized from available literature. Each workshop panelist was asked to comment on 1

2 and suggest modifications to these community summaries, and those suggestions were incorporated into the final published assessments. Potential s Key background information customized to each broad community group was presented at each workshop panel to facilitate the assessment process. This information included future climate change in the region within which the subject natural communities occurred, projected impacts on major ecological processes, dominant or important species, and possible synergies between climate change and existing threats or stressors. The panel was directed to focus on impacts to each natural community type from the present through the end of the 21 st century (i.e., 2100). The panel assessed impacts by considering a range of climate futures bracketed by two scenarios: a change scenario (PCM B1) and a change scenario (GFDL A1FI). Panelists were then led through a structured discussion process to consider this information for each community considered in the workshop. Potential impacts on community drivers and stressors were summarized based on climate model projections, the published literature, and insights from the panelists. s on drivers were considered or if they would alter system drivers in a way that would be more or less favorable for that community type. s on stressors were considered if they increased the influence of that stressor or if they decreased the influence of that stressor on the community type. Panelists were also asked to consider the potential for climate change to facilitate new stressors in the assessment area over the next century. To assess potential impacts on dominant and characteristic tree species, the panelists examined results from Tree Atlas 5 and were asked to consider those results in addition to their knowledge of life history traits and ecology of those species. For shrub and herbaceous species for which no models were available, panelists were instructed to consider the current geographical range of the species, its dependence on particular habitat conditions, and any relevant experimental studies. The panel evaluated how much the available information agreed between climate scenarios, and across space and time. Finally, panelists were asked to consider the potential for interactions among anticipated climate trends, species impacts, and stressors. Input on these future ecosystem interactions relied primarily on the panelists expertise and judgment because there are few, if any, examples of published literature on complex interactions, nor are future interactions accurately represented by ecosystem models. Panelists discussed the adaptive capacity of each natural community based on their ecological knowledge and management experience with the community types in Wisconsin. Panelists were told to focus on community characteristics that would increase or decrease the adaptive capacity of that community. Factors that the panel considered included characteristics of dominant species within each community (e.g., dispersal ability, genetic diversity, range limits) and comprehensive community characteristics (e.g., functional and species diversity, tolerance to a variety of disturbances, distribution across the landscape). The panelists were directed to base their considerations on the current condition of the community given past and current management regimes, and to not consider potential adaptation actions that could take place in the future that could improve (or decrease) adaptive capacity. 2

3 Vulnerability Foling extensive group discussion, each panelist evaluated the intersection of potential impacts and adaptive capacity of each community type to arrive at a vulnerability rating. Participants were provided with individual worksheets and asked to list which impacts they felt were most important to that community in addition to the major factors that would contribute to the adaptive capacity of the community. Panelists were directed to mark their rating in two-dimensional space on the individual worksheet and on a large group poster (Figures 2, 5, and 6). This vulnerability figure required the participants to evaluate the degree of potential impacts related to climate change as well as the adaptive capacity of the system to tolerate those impacts. 2 Participants bracketed the uncertainty related to the two climate scenarios by noting vulnerability separately under the change scenario and change scenario. In doing so, this process differed slightly from the process used in Janowiak et al. (2014) 1, wherein panelists combined the two scenarios into one overall rating. Individual ratings were compared and discussed and used to arrive at a consensus group determination for each of the two scenarios (Figure 7). In many cases, the group determination was at or near the centroid of all individual determinations. However, sometimes the group determination deviated from the centroid because further discussion convinced some group members to alter their original response. Figure 2. Vulnerability determination worksheet, with vulnerability determined by the intersection of potential impacts and adaptive capacity, after Swanston and Janowiak (2012). 2 Confidence Panelists were also directed to give a confidence rating to each of their individual vulnerability determinations (Figures 3 and 8). Panelists were asked to evaluate the amount of evidence they felt was available to support their vulnerability determination and the level of agreement among the available evidence. 3 Panelists evaluated confidence individually and as a group, in a similar fashion to the vulnerability determination. Figure 3. Confidence rating worksheet, adapted from Mastrandrea et al. (2010). 3 3

4 Vulnerability and Confidence Determinations Vulnerability and confidence determinations are presented for the 52 community considered in this assessment process in Table 1 of Appendix A. A crosswalk of northern forest communities (foling Wisconsin NHI classification) to forest types considered in the USFS Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis for Northern Wisconsin and Western Upper Michigan 1 is presented in Table 2 of Appendix A with permission of the USFS. CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARIES For each community, a CCVA summarizing the greatest potential impacts, factors most influencing adaptive capacity, and an executive summary of the overall vulnerability was developed based on recurring themes on participants individual worksheets, workshop notes, and literature (Figure 9). Each CCVA document and its supporting literature were sent to the expert panel for review. Panelists were asked to review each CCVA for accuracy, if there was additional literature that was overlooked, and if there were any additional statements or qualifiers that needed to be made. Figure 4. Climate projections are presented to workshop panelists. Figure 5. Workshop panelists work on their individual vulnerability determinations at the barrens workshop. 4

5 Figure 6. A panelist marks their vulnerability for Moist Cliff on the group worksheet. Figure 7. Panelists reach a consensus on the overall vulnerability for the Mesic Forest change scenario. Figure 8. Final vulnerability determinations and confidence ratings for White Pine-Red Maple Swamp. For the Vulnerability chart, green dots correlate with the change scenario, red dots with the change scenario. Figure 9. Final CCVA for Calcareous Fen. 5

6 References 1 Janowiak, M.K., L.R. Iverson, D.J. Mladenoff, E. Peters, K.R. Wythers, W. Xi, L.A. Brandt, P.R. Butler, S.D. Handler, P.D. Shannon, C. Swanston, L.R. Parker, A.J. Amman, B. Bogaczyk, C. Handler, E. Lesch, P.B. Reich, S. Matthews, M. Peters, A. Prasad, S. Khanal, F. Liu, T. Bal, D. Bronson, A. Burton, J. Ferris, J. Fosgitt, S. Hagan, E. Johnston, E. Kane, C. Matula, R. O'Connor, D. Higgins, M. St. Pierre, J. Daley, M. Davenport, M.R. Emery, D. Fehringer, C.L. Hoving, G. Johnson, D. Neitzel, M. Notaro, A. Rissman, C. Rittenhouse, and R. Ziel Forest ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis for northern Wisconsin and western Upper Michigan: a report from the Northwoods Climate Change Response Framework project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-136. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Newtown Square, PA. 2 Swanston, C., and M.K. Janowiak Forest adaptation resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers. General Technical Report NRS-87. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 3 Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, Elmar Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe, and F.W. Zwiers Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Geneva, Switzerland. 4 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [WDNR] Natural Communities of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. 5 Iverson, L.R., A.M. Prasad, S.N. Matthews, and M. Peters Estimating potential habitat for 134 eastern U.S. tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management 254 (3):

7 APPENDIX A. Table 1. Natural communities covered in this assessment, workshop group, and summary of impact, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability under change and change scenarios, and confidence in the amount of evidence available and level of agreement between evidence. Natural Community Workshop Group Alder Thicket Low Change Scenario (PCM B1) Change Scenario (GFDL A1FI) Confidence Vulnerability Algific Talus Slope Bedrock Neutral Alvar Great Lakes Shorelines Bedrock Glade Barrens Neutral Low Bedrock Shore Great Lakes Shorelines Neutral Bog Relict wetlands Neutral Boreal Rich Fen Bracken Grassland Grasslands Neutral Calcareous Fen wetlands Cedar Glade Barrens Neutral Central Poor Fen Central Sands Pine-Oak Forest Coastal Plain Marsh Dry Cliff Central Sands wetlands Barrens Central Sands wetlands Bedrock Low Neutral Negative Neutral Negative Dry Prairie Grasslands Neutral Dry-mesic Prairie Grasslands Neutral Vulnerability Evidence Agreement - Limited Low Low Limited Low Limited -Low Low Negative Low Low Limited Low Limited -Low -Low 7

8 Natural Community Workshop Group Emergent Marsh Ephemeral Pond Low Change Scenario (PCM B1) Change Scenario (GFDL A1FI) Confidence Vulnerability Vulnerability Evidence Agreement Low Neutral - Negative Felsenmeer Bedrock Neutral Floodplain Forest Great Lakes Alkaline Bedrock Lakeshore land forests Great Lakes Shorelines Neutral Great Lakes Barrens Great Lakes Shorelines Great Lakes Dune Great Lakes Ridge and Swale Hemlock Relict Great Lakes Shorelines Great Lakes Shorelines Interdunal Wetland Great Lakes Shorelines Mesic Prairie Moist Cliff Moist Sandy Meadow Muskeg Northern Sedge Meadow Oak Barrens Oak Opening Oak Woodland Open Bog Grasslands Bedrock Central Sands wetlands - Limited Low Negative Low Negative Low Negative Low - Negative -Low Negative Low Negative Low Negative Low Negative Neutral Barrens Neutral Negative - - -Low - 8

9 Natural Community Workshop Group Pattered Peatland Low Change Scenario (PCM B1) Change Scenario (GFDL A1FI) Confidence Vulnerability Negative Pine Barrens Barrens Neutral Pine Relict Poor Fen Sand Barrens Barrens Neutral Sand Prairie Grasslands Neutral Shore Fen Shrub-carr Dry Forest Dry-mesic Forest Hardwood Swamp Mesic Forest Sedge Meadow Tamarack Swamp Vulnerability Evidence Agreement - Negative - Negative - -Low -Low Negative Low Low Neutral Neutral Low land forests Neutral wetlands wetlands Neutral Wet Prairie wetlands Neutral Wet-mesic Prairie wetlands Neutral White Pine- Red Maple Swamp land forests - -Low Limited Negative Negative Low Negative Low 9

10 Table 2. Crosswalk between natural communities and forest types covered in USFS Forest Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment and Synthesis for Northern Wisconsin and Western Upper Michigan 1 (reprinted with permission from USFS). Where a natural community spans multiple forest types, all relevant forest types are presented. Because the process used by Janowiak et al. (2014) combined the and change scenarios, only the combined impact, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability is presented. Low to Change Scenarios Confidence Natural Community USFS Forest Type Vulnerability Evidence Agreement Black Spruce Swamp Lowland conifers Negative - Boreal Forest Upland spruce-fir Aspen-birch Negative Hardwood Swamp Lowland-riparian hardwoods Northern Dry Forest Jack pine - Northern Dry-mesic Forest White pine Red pine Oak Northern Mesic Forest Northern hardwoods - Northern Tamarack Swamp Lowland conifers Negative - Northern Wet-mesic Forest Lowland conifers Negative - 10