Download Kansas - John Harrington - University of Alaska System

John Harrington, Jr.
RII-Track 1: 2009 - 2014
NSF Award No. EPS-0903806)
PHASE VI: Climate Change and Energy:
Basic Science, Impacts, and Mitigation
Susan Wahl
RII-Track 2: 2009 - 2012
NSF Award No. EPS-0919443
Collaborative Research: EPSCoR RII Track
2 Oklahoma and Kansas: A cyberCommons
for Ecological Forecasting
The extent of the gallery forest on Konza Prairie Biological
Station increased 70% from 162 ha in 1939 to 274 ha in 2002
Social Ecological Systems
efforts sponsored by Kansas
NSF EPSCoR:
Climate Change & Energy
Biofuels
Impacts & Adaptation
cyberCommons
Woody Invasion
Ecological Forecasting
Understanding Land Cover Change
Climate Change and Energy:
Basic Science, Impacts, and Mitigation
The IPCC Working Group format of Science, Impacts & Adaptation,
and Mitigation was used to help conceptualize the integration
NSF EPSCoR
Ecological Forecasting
Human Dimensions funding for:
a new faculty member
Dr. Kendra McLauchlan
Dr. Marcellus Caldus
Stakeholder Interviews
Summer 2007
36 semi-structured interviews of
farmers/ranchers & local specialists across the
Kansas/Republican River basin
Major goals
 Learn from local stakeholders
 Understand the drivers of land use change
 Identify the main information sources that
inform decisions to alter land use
Drivers of Land Use Change







Economics / business as usual
New land uses or management practice
Responses to short-term variations
Technological applications
While the economy is ‘king,’ there is an underlying
ethic of land stewardship
Larger parcels or parcels that are closer together
are seen as desirable for adoption of new practices
Early adopters are very important in the eventual
adoption of new practices/technologies by a
majority of the land user population
Information Sources
Producers

There is a need to think it through
(reason)


What they see on the land





At the coffee shop
From an agronomist/extension agent
Information that they consume





It is important that they “can see it
working” locally
Neighbors
Demonstration plots
What they hear [face-to-face]


The process involves considerable
synthesis
Trade publications
Newsletters
Radio/Television
Internet
What they know [tradition/experience]
Specialists
Higher ups – in their
organization
Trade publications
Professional journals (by some)
E-mail
Internet
Feds – information stream from
within the agency – some are
able to filter the info stream for
local conditions
National standards with some
ability to make local
adjustments
Extension – more universal
access to a variety of
information sources
Communication Channels for Information Flow
to Land Use and Cover Change Decision Makers




Oral  face-to-face, ag radio
Observations  neighbors, demonstration plots,
field days
Electronic  Internet
Written  Trade publications, local newspaper,
newsletters, extension bulletins
Conclusions







Limited sample size
Economics is the main concern
Specialists suggest that on-going/recent changes are
no-till management, residential, or recreation uses
In order to influence change, there is a need to
communicate with key producers in a region
New information (e.g., global change) needs to be
tailored to local conditions and introduced by
trusted local information providers
For specialists, local experience results in an
increased ability to tailor information to match
local conditions
While producers anticipate variability, they are
vulnerable to change (BAU mindset)
Designing Resilience
Joan Nassauer
GRA Beau Burkitt
SWAT modeling
3 scenarios:
Commodity production
Nitrogen load (Kg/ha) entering
the river
Water quality
Biodiversity
The LTER Social Science Workshop
in Athens, GA (Aug 3-5, 2005)
Four fundamental and cross-cutting questions were identified:
1. What are the human dimensions of an LTER site?
2. How do people and organizations influence the spatial and
temporal scale of environmental conditions?
3. What affects the distribution of ecological goods and
services across spatial and temporal scales?
4. What role does science have in environmental decisionmaking?
Flint Hills Socio-Ecological System
Biotic Structure
Plant community structure (species,
lifeform, LAI, grassland/woodland
conversion); consumer
communities/foodwebs; microbial
communities; native/non-native
interactions; landscape structure;
biodiversity
Regional Drivers
Climate;
Regional economy and
human demography;
Human Behavior
Demographic shifts;
changes in land- and
water-use; regulatory
action
Q5
Human Outcomes
Health-related risks;
economic security; cultural
identity; science literacy
Q4
Disturbance Regimes
Press: land-use change and
landscape conversion; directional
climate change; nutrient
enrichment
Q1
Ecosystem Function
Terrestrial and aquatic productivity;
decomposition rates; net C
exchange; nutrient cycling;
hydrologic coupling of
terrestrial/aquatic ecosystems;
ground water/surface water
interactions
Pulse: increased climate variability
(storms/floods; periodic droughts)
Ecosystem Services
Rangeland quality/productivity; water quality/quantity;
biodiversity maintenance; disease regulation; wildlife
conservation ; aesthetic values
Q2
Q3
Q1: How do long-term changes in land-use (rangeland, agricultural, residential uses) interact with directional climate change and short-term climate variability
(storms, droughts) to alter ecosystem structure and function in the Flint Hills?
Q2: How are feedbacks between ecosystem processes (productivity, decomposition, nutrient cycling, hydrology) and biotic structure (land cover, vegetation
structure, consumer, microbial communities, biodiversity) affected by land-use change and climatic variability? What is the influence of changing landscape
structure on these feedbacks?
Q3: How does altered biotic structure and function affect regional ecosystem services (rangeland quality/productivity, water quality/quantity, biodiversity
maintenance, disease regulation, wildlife conservation, aesthetic values)?
Q4: How does the human population of the Flint Hills perceive and respond to changes in ecosystem goods and services (e.g., water quality, non-native
species, biodiversity losses, etc.)?
Q5: How do humans decisions and actions affect land- and water-use in the Flint Hills and responses to current and future climatic variability?
KNZ Human Dimensions Efforts
Agrarian Transition
A look at the rural sociology and
environmental history related to agricultural
changes in the Flint Hills
Figure 10: Per Capita US Beef Consumption and Flint Hills Cattle Inventory
US per capita beef consumption
and Flint Hills cattle inventory
100
80
60
40
Lbs Beef/Person
Cattle (10,000s)
20
0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Source: USDA
The LTER Ecosystem Services Workshop (May 2007)
Assess ecosystem services for our LTER site, then
select six critical ecosystem services:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
supporting - primary production
- to grow grass for cattle
provisioning – food
- beef
provisioning - genetic diversity
-Konza Prairie and the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve as
sites to 'save' or 'bank' the species of the region
cultural – inspirational
- books, music about the region
cultural - aesthetic
- photography (Apr 2007 Natl Geog), viewing prairie
fires, night sky viewing
cultural - ecotourism
- scenic drives and the TG Prairie Preserve
NSF has made supplemental
funding available to the LTER
Network for adding a human
dimensions component and
‘extending the inference’
KNZ has been heavily involved in
SES supplemental activities
A decade of human dimensions work
I’ve learned the importance of mixed methods approaches that
add understanding to data-based explanations.
There is a tendency for non-social scientists to think that social
scientists come in ‘one size fits all.’
The ecosystem services concept and land cover change are useful
approachs for addressing the status and on-going changes in a
landscape.
My ecologist colleagues are interested in expanding their work to
include a human dimensions component.
NSF has been reluctant to build human dimensions funding into
existing programs (e.g., LTER funding).
There is a growing pool of funds, typically new programs at NSF,
for Biocomplexity, SES, CHANS and now SEES projects.
Global Change: Some Concluding Thoughts
Because complex systems
science based approaches
are relatively new ways to
conceptualize the Earth,
the citizens of out planet
face huge challenges for
the several generations.
The
Bottleneck
All organisms change their
immediate environment.
We have changed things –
what should we do?
who should provide the leadership?
when should we change?
“To change something, build a new model that
makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Mead