Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Modeling Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Montane Meadows and Biodiversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
EPA Grant Number: R825155Title: Modeling Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Montane Meadows and Biodiversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Investigators: Debinski, Diane , Jakubauskas, Mark E. , Kindscher, Kelly
Institution: Iowa State University , University of Kansas , University of Oklahoma Norman Campus
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1999
Project Amount: $709,640
RFA: Ecological Assessment (1996) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
Our project was an examination of ecological dynamics in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), concentrating specifically upon the spatial and temporal dynamics of montane meadow communities. We examined both the abiotic aspects of these communities as well as the biodiversity of plant, bird and butterfly communities. Our long-term goal was to develop predictive species assemblage models based upon landscape level habitat analysis. This involved using intensive, local field sampling to test for relationships between species distribution patterns and remotely sensed data. The research involved several steps: (1) quantifying the spatial and temporal variability in montane meadow communities; (2) developing spectrally-based spatially-explicit models for predicting plant and animal species diversity patterns in montane meadows; and (3) testing the spectrally-based spatially-explicit models for predicting plant and animal species diversity patterns in montane meadows.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
We used remotely sensed imagery to identify and map montane meadow types (M-types) along a moisture gradient (M1= hydric, M3=mesic, M6=xeric), and to develop spectrally-based spatially-explicit models for predicting species diversity patterns in two regions of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: (1) Grand Teton National Park and Bridger Teton National Forest (Tetons), and (2) Gallatin National Forest and Yellowstone National Park (Gallatins). We investigated the potential to predict species assemblages associated with these meadow types and we also tested our ability to classify specific subsets of montane meadow types such as wetland and sagebrush communities.
We classified wetlands into two categories that differed by the percentage of obligate wetland plant species. Accuracy of wetland classification based upon remotely sensed data was 70 percent. We classified four sagebrush communities [low sagebrush (Artemesia arbuscula), big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), mixed low sagebrush/big sagebrush, and bitterbrush (Purshia. tridentata)/big sagebrush]. Overall accuracy of our sagebrush community classification based upon remotely sensed data was 65 percent, and was highest for the mixed big sagebrush/low sagebrush community at 86 percent.
From the perspective of global climate change indicators, mesic meadows showed the greatest seasonal and interannual variability in spectral response and highest species diversity of plants. Given the rich biodiversity of mesic montane meadows and their sensitivity to variations in temperature and moisture, they may be important to monitor in the context of environmental change.
We also investigated the association of plant, bird and butterfly species with each of the meadow types. Because of the rarity of many of the species, our analyses focused on species for which we had minimum standards of data. These standards varied among taxonomic groups, but species only observed infrequently were not included in the analyses. With respect to the plant community, M1 and M2s were dominated by Salix spp and Carex rostrata. M3 and M4 types were dominated by Poa pratensis and Artemisia tridentata, and M5 and M6 types being dominated by Festuca idahoensis and Artemisia tridentata. The data for the M1 and M2 s are dominated by wetland plants in both the Gallatin and Teton sites for all years. Comparisons of plant community composition between the Gallatins and the Tetons using the Bray-Curtis distance measure, showed that statistical differences only occurred for the driest communities in the M5 and M6 meadow types.
The bird and butterfly communities exhibited more differences in distribution and abundance between the two regions, and this may be explained by a combination of patch size and vegetation structure effects. The average patch size for most meadow types is smaller by an order of magnitude in the Gallatins. Further, the M1 and M2 meadows had significantly shorter woody vegetation. Thus, there were landscape-level and habitat structure differences between the regions despite overall similarity in vegetation type. Given these differences we focus our statements below on species common to both regions.
The distribution patterns of 6 of the 11 most abundant bird species were significantly correlated with meadow type as defined by satellite imagery. However, this value increased to 10 out of 11 bird species showing significant correlations when both remotely sensed data and landscape variables (e.g., shrub biomass, percent cover of willow or sagebrush, and meadow area) were added to the models. Abundances of the species commonly associated with hydric meadows [Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)] were significantly correlated with meadow type and landscape variables such as percent willow cover and percent woody vegetation. There were fewer species in the xeric meadows, but the most commonly observed species, the Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), was highly correlated with meadow type and percent sagebrush cover.
The butterfly community showed even stronger associations with particular meadow types than did the bird community, especially in the Teton region. We used regression tree analyses to separate meadow types by their associated species of butterflies. Fourteen of 67 butterfly species distribution patterns could be used to classify sampling sites into one of five different meadow types with 92 percent accuracy in 1997 and 96 percent accuracy in 1998 for the Teton region. Six species showed high importance scores for both years in one particular meadow as follows: Coenonympha orchracea (M6), Lycaena heteronea (M6), Coenonympha haydenii (M5), Cercyonis oetus (M3), Speyeria mormonia (M3), and Boloria frigga (M2).
Journal Articles on this Report : 10 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 39 publications | 11 publications in selected types | All 10 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Debinski DM, Kindscher K, Jakubauskas ME. A remote sensing and GIS-based model of habitats and biodiversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. International Journal of Remote Sensing 1999;20(17):3281-3291. |
R825155 (1997) R825155 (1999) R825155 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Debinski DM, Jakubauskas ME, Kindscher K. Montane meadows as indicators of environmental change. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2000;64(1):213-225. |
R825155 (1999) R825155 (Final) |
Exit |
|
|
Debinski DM, Ray C, Saveraid EH. Species diversity and the scale of the landscape mosaic: do scales of movement and patch size affect diversity? Biological Conservation 2001;98(2):179-190. |
R825155 (Final) R826110 (Final) |
Exit Exit Exit |
|
|
Debinski DM. Using satellite data to support fieldwork: can species distributions be predicted? Yellowstone Science 1996;4(3):2-5. |
R825155 (Final) |
|
|
|
Debinski D, Jakubauskas M, Kindscher K. Assessing biodiversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Geo Info Systems 1997;7:42-45. |
R825155 (1999) R825155 (Final) |
Exit |
|
|
Jakubauskas M, Kindscher K, Debinski D. Multitemporal characterization and mapping of montane sagebrush communities using Indian IRS LISS-II imagery. Geocarto International 1998;13(4):65-74. |
R825155 (1997) R825155 (1999) R825155 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Jakubauskas M, Kindscher K, Fraser A, Debinski D, Price KP. Close-range remote sensing of aquatic macrophyte vegetation cover. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2000;21(18):3533-3538. |
R825155 (1997) R825155 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Jakubauskas M, Kindscher K, Debinski D. Spectral and biophysical relationships of montane sagebrush communities in multi-temporal SPOT XS data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2001;22(9):1767-1778. |
R825155 (1997) R825155 (1999) R825155 (Final) R826110 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Kindscher K, Fraser A, Jakubauskas ME, Debinski DM. Identifying wetland meadows in Grand Teton National Park using remote sensing and average wetland values. Wetlands Ecology and Management 1997;5(4):265-273. |
R825155 (1999) R825155 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
|
|
Saveraid EH, Debinski DM, Kindscher K, Jakubauskas ME. A comparison of satellite data and landscape variables in predicting bird species occurrences in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA. Landscape Ecology 2001;16(1):71-83. |
R825155 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
global climate, ecosystem, landscape, indicator, scaling, terrestrial, habitat, ecology, biodiversity, modeling, satellite, landsat, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, Montana, WY, MT, EPA Region 8., RFA, Air, Geographic Area, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Ecosystem Protection, exploratory research environmental biology, Chemical Mixtures - Environmental Exposure & Risk, State, climate change, Air Pollution Effects, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Monitoring/Modeling, Ecological Effects - Human Health, Atmosphere, Ecological Indicators, risk assessment, ecological effects, habitat, Montane Lotic ecosystem, scaling, predictive species model, environmental monitoring, biodiversity, ecosystem assessment, Yellowstone, ecological assessment, GIS, landscape characterization, spatial and temporal patternsRelevant Websites:
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.