Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Multi-scaled assessment methods: Prototype development within the Interior Columbia River Basin.
EPA Grant Number: R825465Title: Multi-scaled assessment methods: Prototype development within the Interior Columbia River Basin.
Investigators: Bourgeron, Patrick , Poff, N. LeRoy , Milne, Bruce , Davis, Frank , Humphries, Hope
Institution: University of Colorado at Boulder
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: February 1, 1997 through January 31, 2000 (Extended to January 31, 2001)
Project Amount: $1,516,180
RFA: Ecological Assessment (1996) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
There were six specific objectives for this project: (1) link biophysical and biological patterns associated with terrestrial and aquatic systems at different scales; (2) quantify the scaled relations of linked biophysical and biological systems; (3) develop methods for predicting broad and fine scale patterns over areas of varying sizes; (4) classify landscapes at different scales based on biophysical and biological characteristics and define probabilities of response of the biotic components of landscapes; (5) verify the effectiveness of different categories of classifications based on indirect variables (e.g., elevation, lithology, landforms) for predicting biophysical (groups of direct variables; e.g., climatic variables) and biological characteristics of areas of varying sizes for evaluating alternative land management strategies and conservation; and (6) prototype multiscaled representativeness assessments for evaluating alternative land management strategies using products from Objectives 1-5 with a regional conservation example.The study area, the 58-million hectare interior Columbia River basin, is located in the northwestern United States, extending east from the Cascade Crest in the states of Washington and Oregon to the continental divide of Montana, Wyoming, and Utah, and also incorporating parts of the Klamath and Lahontan basins in Oregon and Nevada, respectively.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Ecosystems exist at multiple scales, from local to global, and are defined by associations of biotic and abiotic components and the interactions among them. Each component has multiple attributes, but not all components are equally important at all spatial scales or for all purposes. The challenges of ecosystem characterization include selecting the attributes and properties that best define ecosystems at all relevant spatial scales, delineating boundaries between spatial representations of ecological units, defining and quantifying ecosystem properties, and extrapolating results to different locations and across spatial scales. The following discussion of our results provides guidance for the development and implementation of several phases of an ecological assessment.Although differences were found in the ability of four ecological classifications to represent patterns of interest in the study area, all performed adequately in most cases, and in the context of our study, interchangeability of ecological classifications was indicated. Classifications partitioned geographic and environmental space in different ways, and varied in their ability to be used for purposes other than those for which they were designed. However, all performed surprisingly well, suggesting that, at least in the preliminary phases of an assessment, or for broad-scale assessments, a single classification may be used initially for multiple purposes. Because the performance of the ecological classifications varied with scale and representation of particular patterns, we recommend for a specific assessment:
- Constructing ecological classifications with appropriate variables that address the objectives of the project.
- Testing hypothesized relationships between the variables used to construct classifications and patterns and processes of interest.
- Testing the performance of classifications with respect to the objectives.
- Evaluating the performance of classifications before using them for purposes other than those for which they were designed and tested.
In practice, it is likely that arbitrary decisions may be made about which variables to use in the design of an ecological classification, or which existing system to use. Therefore, validation of classifications should be performed to lead to a cost/benefit analysis. Suggestions for future research include:
- Quantifying the delineation of ecological land units.
- Developing additional techniques to evaluate ecological classifications for specific applications.
- Developing methods to more effectively characterize variability within land units.
Our results indicated that statistical models of species and community distributions can be developed successfully, but because model performance differed among species and communities, the degree of agreement between predicted and observed distributions must be quantified. The results suggest that such an approach is most appropriate for canopy dominants and upland plant communities, and therefore may be used to attribute the occurrence of selected biotic components to ecological land units where distribution data are not available. Gradient analyses indicated that spatial scale, geographic location, and scale of vegetation organization produced changes in the environmental relations of vegetation patterns. Similar changes in regional-scale environmental relations were observed for fish communities as a function of geographic location.
Using results from our analyses, we delineated land units for conservation
planning, which incorporated spatial patterns of gradual change in landscape
properties to ensure that all portions of relevant environmental variability
were included in regional networks of conservation areas. The suitability of
land units for conservation was determined using a knowledge-based system
operating within a geographic information system-integrated application
framework. This approach allowed us to generate explicit suitability ratings for
land units. Our analyses demonstrated that the amount and distribution of
suitable land units can be dramatically changed
by changes in the
availability of various data layers comprising input into a knowledge base.
An assessment of existing conservation areas using suitability ratings suggested that not all lands with conservation status have suitable ecological conditions, and that many areas with suitable conditions occur outside conserved lands in the study area. Overall, our results indicate that representativeness assessment should be embedded in a flexible, adaptive management-oriented planning process. The results of the application of any method should be considered to be indicative, not prescriptive. Final conservation selections should be made through the planning process.
Journal Articles on this Report : 3 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 36 publications | 17 publications in selected types | All 4 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Barber JA, Turner SJ, Jensen ME, Goodman IA. Impact of broad- and fine-scale patterns on regional landscape characterization using AVHRR-derived land cover data. Ecosystem Health 1999;5(4):234-258. |
R825465 (1998) R825465 (1999) R825465 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Jensen ME, Dibenedetto JP, Barber JA, Montagne C, Bourgeron PS. Spatial modeling of rangeland potential vegetation environments. Journal of Range Management 2001;54(5):528-536. |
R825465 (1998) R825465 (1999) R825465 (Final) |
Exit |
|
Kan AT, Hunter MA, Fu G, Tomson MB. Effectiveness of chemically enhanced solubilization of hydrocarbons. SPE Production & Facilities 1997;12(3):153-158. |
R825465 (1998) R825465 (1999) R825465 (Final) R825513C015 (Final) R825513C016 (Final) |
Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
hierarchical ecological land classification, generalized linear model, classification tree, canonical correspondence analysis, variation partitioning, plant functional type, decision support system, fuzzy logic model, reserve selection algorithm., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Aquatic Ecosystems & Estuarine Research, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Ecosystem Protection, exploratory research environmental biology, Chemical Mixtures - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Aquatic Ecosystem, Ecological Effects - Human Health, Ecology and Ecosystems, Ecological Indicators, numerical classification techniques, risk assessment, predicting bioenvironments, biophysical variables, landscape classification, prototype development, regional conservation planning, biological cycling, aquatic ecosystems, evaluating alternative land management strategies, multi-scaled assessment methodsRelevant Websites:
http://www.colorado.edu/research/cires/banff/upload/326/index.html
This site contains the paper
for 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling
entitled "Conducting large-scale conservation evaluation and conservation area
selection using a knowledge-based system." Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Reynolds
KM, authors.
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.