* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Andrews LTER Central Question
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Saskatchewan wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
The Andrews LTER program has been guided by a common Central Question for over a decade: How do land use, natural disturbances, and climate change affect three key sets of ecosystem services: carbon and nutrient dynamics, biodiversity, and hydrology? In LTER6 we will maintain this central question, with a few modifications: • emphasis on climate change/climate variability as a driver • inclusion of the influence of topography on relationships between drivers and responders • connection of the natural science and the human domain via ecosystem services, and feedbacks from human domain to the natural sciences • emphasis on of multiple interactions among drivers and responders and system feedbacks This interpretation of the Central Question is illustrated in the following slide Land Use Disturbance Climate Drivers Influences of topography Hydrology Biodiversity Carbon and Nutrient Cycles Ecosystem services Responders Human behavior Note that in the previous slide, the “natural science” interactions are congregated into a box. For now, for the sake of communication, let’s call this the “natural science box”. The following slide shows the same conceptual organization but provides additional specific details within each of the main categories that we will focus on. Disturbance Land Use floods; fire; pathogens insect pests forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature Drivers Influences of topography Biodiversity Hydrology streamflow amount, timing and temperature; hillslope flowpaths Carbon and Nutrient Cycles Ecosystem services wood production; water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & recreation, other (tbd) biodiversity; biogeography; genomics; phenology Responders Human behavior forest land management; other public responses (tbd) Three Proposed Goals for LTER6: 1. Project future responses of biodiversity, hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycles at Andrews under different climate change scenarios, considering the influences of land use, disturbance and topography. 2. Provide tools (models, demonstrations) to forest managers to enhance sustainable forest management in alternate climate scenarios; project feedbacks from forest management alternatives on forest structure. 3. Develop a conceptual organization to connect ecosystem services from mid-Cascades forests to the human societies in the McKenzie and Willamette Valleys under climate change/land use change/disturbance scenarios and conduct pilot work to promote additional funding from other sources. Note that the spatial domain of Goal 1 is primarily the Andrews Forest; the spatial domain of Goal 2 is primarily the Blue River basin (and to some extent, the entire Willamette National Forest); the spatial domain of Goal 3 is all of the above plus the McKenzie and Willamette Valleys. In order to translate this conceptual organization into units that can be developed for a proposal, and subsequently into components of a six-year project, we will organize interdisciplinary working groups. (Or if we were to call them “working interdisciplinary groups” they could be wigs. Hmm. Well, your creativity in coming up with good acronyms here and elsewhere is welcome!) Six permanent working groups and one temporary working group are proposed and described in the following slides. (Four working groups for Goal 1, one for Goal 2, and one for Goal 3; the temporary group is needed to establish climate scenarios). It is important to recognize that from the perspective of the overall concept, these units are artificial – the concept is an integrated whole, not a bunch of units. But everybody can’t do everything … The six working groups described here will likely change somewhat with time based on our discussions in the coming weeks. We will be asking people to “self assign” to the working groups. People are invited, indeed encouraged, to participate in more than one working group. Also note that 1. It will be essential to maintain fluid communication among working groups. So all of the working groups will need to identify members who are willing to report to and communicate with other groups. 2. Some working groups may break into smaller sub units 3. Specific research questions are not specified here. We’ve already generated a lot of terrific questions – the next stage will be for working groups to refine sets of questions/objectives/hypotheses, and then we’ll share, discuss and modify as whole group to establish harmonious linkages. The temporary, climate scenario working group: As a starting point for this work we need to establish a set of alternate climate change/climate variability scenarios that will be a basis for most of the rest of what we do. These could be developed from “downscaling” of IPCC scenarios or from arbitrarily picking 2 or more different possible future scenarios involving chanage in precipitation/ change in temperature. For the proposal writing, we need to recruit a small team who is willing to work on the development of these scenarios. This work needs to be done quickly. Goal 1. Project future responses of biodiversity, hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycles at Andrews under different climate change scenarios, considering the influences of land use, disturbance and topography. FOUR PROPOSED WORKING GROUPS Theses groups are defined by linkages among components in the “natural sciences” box. They are illustrated in the following figures as LTER6 working group Disturbance #1: floods; fire; influence of topog. pathogens and landinsect usepests (via forest structure) on r’ships between macroclimate and microclimate; influence of microclimate on biodiversity & phenology Hydrology streamflow amount, timing and temperature; hillslope flowpaths Land Use Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Drivers Influences of topography Biodiversity Carbon and Nutrient Cycles Ecosystem services wood production; water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & recreation, other (tbd) biodiversity; biogeography; genomics; phenology Responders Human behavior forest land management; other public responses (tbd) LTER6 working group Disturbance #2: impacts of climate floods; fire; change/variability pathogens and insectof pests interception aerosols on hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycling Land Use Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Drivers Influences of topography Biodiversity Hydrology streamflow amount, timing and temperature; hillslope flowpaths Carbon and Nutrient Cycles Ecosystem services wood production; water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & recreation, other (tbd) biodiversity; biogeography; genomics; phenology Responders Human behavior forest land management; other public responses (tbd) Disturbance Land Use floods; fire; pathogens insect pests forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature Drivers Influences of topography Biodiversity LTER6 working group #3: Hydrology Interactions among climate streamflow amount, Carbon and timing and variability, change/climate temperature; Nutrient biodiversity, and hillslope flowpaths Cycles disturbance events (emphasizing disturbance/biodiversity Ecosystem services feedbacks in a background wood production; of climate change and water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & topographic variability) recreation, other (tbd) biodiversity; biogeography; genomics; phenology Responders Human behavior forest land management; other public responses (tbd) Disturbance floods; fire; pathogens insect pests Land Use Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Drivers Influences of topography Biodiversity Hydrology streamflow amount, timing and temperature; hillslope flowpaths Carbon and Nutrient Cycles biodiversity; biogeography; genomics; phenology Responders Human behavior Ecosystem services forest land management; production; LTER6 wood working group #4: integrated model produces projections other public responses water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & of forest future based on climate scenarios – incorporates (tbd) recreation, other (tbd) information/concepts from groups 1-3. Goal 2. Provide tools (models, demonstrations) to forest managers to enhance sustainable forest management in alternate climate scenarios; project feedbacks from forest management alternatives on forest structure. ONE PROPOSED WORKING GROUP Disturbance floods; fire; pathogens insect pests Land Use Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Drivers Influences of topography LTER6 working group #5: Management applications and Biodiversity Hydrology implications (working group 5 probably biodiversity; streamflow amount, functions as a collaboration biogeography; timing and between working genomics; Carbon group and 4 and temperature; phenology silviculturists/managers hillslope flowpaths Nutrient Cycles Responders Ecosystem services Human behavior wood production; water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & recreation, other (tbd) forest land management; other public responses (tbd) Goal 3. Develop a conceptual organization to connect ecosystem services from mid-Cascades forests to the human societies in the McKenzie and Willamette Valleys under climate change/land use change/disturbance scenarios and conduct pilot work to promote additional funding from other sources. ONE PROPOSED WORKING GROUP Disturbance floods; fire; pathogens insect pests Land Use Climate amount, timing and phase of precip; Average and variability in temperature forest structure & age/species; albedo; interception Drivers of topography LTER6Influences working group #6: Conceptual development of linkages Hydrology between climate change/climate Biodiversity biodiversity; variability, ecosystem services, and streamflow amount, biogeography; timing and human behavior. ESSENTIAL TO genomics; Carbon and temperature; HAVE BOTH NATURAL SCIENTISTS phenology hillslope flowpaths Nutrient AND SOCIAL SCIENTISTS IN THIS Cycles Responders GROUP! Ecosystem services Human behavior wood production; water quality/quantity; forest aesthetics & recreation, other (tbd) forest land management; other public responses (tbd) Summary of groups – one temporary “climate scenario” group plus: 1. influence of topography and forest structure on microclimate; influence of microclimate on biodiversity & phenology 2. impacts of climate change/variability and interception of aerosols on hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycling 3. Interactions among climate change/climate variability, biodiversity, and disturbance events (might also include the subsequent impacts of disturbance events on hydrology and carbon/nutrient cycles 4. integrated model produces projections of forest future based on climate scenarios 5. Management applications and implications 6. Conceptual development of linkages among climate change/climate variability, ecosystem services, and human behavior. The next step: Anyone who is interested in working to develop the concepts and research plans for this proposal is WELCOME to participate. You do not have to attend the monthly meetings in order to participate. We’ll try to set up ways so that the working groups can incorporate participants remotely, and so that only a subset of members from working groups will have to participate in monthly meetings. It would be very helpful, however, if as many people as possible attend the second half of monthly meetings in March, April and May. If you are interested in participating, please contact us ([email protected] and [email protected]) as soon as you can to let us know how you’d like to be involved. In the second half of the next monthly meeting (10-11 am, Friday April 5, Richardson 313) we will briefly discuss the organization described in this powerpoint presentation, and then we will break into working groups. The working groups will be given assignments to develop specific questions and preliminary ideas for research plans to share at the following monthly meeting. • Friday, March 17: Distribute information about organization and working groups to PIs (modification of the ppt shared with exec team). Ask people to notify us about their interest in specific groups. Fine tune group organizations based on feedback • April 6 monthly meeting: brief overview of LTER 6 organization. Working groups meet separately. Assignment for the next monthly meeting: 1. Identify group leader/s. 2. Identify reporters to attend and report back at monthly meetings. 3. Develop first cut for research goals and questions (or specific objectives. ) 4. Consider how existing infrastructure and data can be used to answer questions. 5. Consider how/whether a common transect might be useful to answer questions/accomplish objectives • month of April: working groups meet and communicate. (reports posted on LTER6 web site). • May 6 monthly meeting: Reports from working groups. Compare/contrast group questions/objectives, starting with synthesis/modeling group. Suggest modifications to make sure synthesis can be accomplished. Develop plans to maintain communications between groups. Consider whether common transect will be useful and make a decision to go ahead or not. Assignment for next monthly meeting: revise objectives/questions. Develop details for work plan (within rough budget guidelines, which will be given).