NE Resilience Report - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Map 3.5: Local connectedness. This map estimates the degree of connectedness of a cell with its surroundings within a three kilometer radius, and compares it to the regional average. See Appendix I for the corresponding map showing Maritime Canada and the full Northern Appalachian-Acadian extent. 34 Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region The Nature Conservancy • Eastern Conservation Science • Eastern Division • 99 Bedford St • Boston, MA 02111
Section 3: Combining Resilience Factors In this section we describe our methods for combining the separate resilience factors into an integrated score. The integrated score is useful for thinking about how the factors combine to create resilience, but we encourage users to look closely at the individual factors because they reveal interesting and different information about the landscape A Common Scale: In order to combine and compare resilience factors, we transformed each metric to standardized normalized scores (Z-scores) so that each had a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1 (the standard normal distribution- see below). This ensured that the data sets could be combined with each factor receiving equal weight, allowing us to manipulate the weights systematically. Due to the large size of the source datasets, each dataset was transformed into an integer grid and the Z distribution was multiplied by 1000 (e.g. 1 standard deviation = value of 1000) for more efficient data processing and storage. Using the mean µ ("mu"), and standard deviation σ ("sigma") of the scores for all cells in the region, we converted it into a z score by using the following formula on each individual score “x”: Landscape Complexity: Integrated Score: Because the variety of landforms was the factor most directly related to the number of microclimates based on the current literature, we gave twice the weight to this factor in the combined score: Landscape Complexity = Flats (2*LV + 1* ER + 1 WD)/4) + Slopes (2*LV + 1* ER/3). Where LV = landform variety, ER = elevation range, and WD = wetland density. Estimates of Resilience: Integrated Score: We created a basic estimate of resilience for each cell by summing the Z-values for: 1) local connectedness and 2) landscape complexity, and taking the average. Both inputs had equal weights and we transformed the resultant grid into a Z distribution. Regional flow patterns were not used in this calculation. Estimated Resilience = (LC1 +LC2)/2 Where LC1 = local connectedness and LC2 = landscape complexity Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region 35 The Nature Conservancy • Eastern Conservation Science • Eastern Division • 99 Bedford St • Boston, MA 02111
Page 1 and 2: Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Con
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Intro
Page 5 and 6: CHAPTER Introduction 1 Climate chan
Page 7 and 8: CHAPTER Defining Sites and 2 Geophy
Page 9 and 10: Landform Types (Map 3.3) The landfo
Page 11 and 12: Map 3.2: The nine geology classes u
Page 13 and 14: Grouping Hexagons into Geophysical
Page 15 and 16: Descriptions of the Settings. The d
Page 17 and 18: Mid Elevation: Settings from 800’
Page 19 and 20: CHAPTER Estimating Resilience 3 A c
Page 21 and 22: Figure 3.1: Topographic position an
Page 23 and 24: Figure 3.3: The underlying slope an
Page 25 and 26: Map 3.1: Landform variety. This map
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3.4 a-d: A three-dimensional
Page 29 and 30: Map 3.3: Wetland density. This map
Page 31 and 32: Section 2: Landscape Permeability T
Page 33 and 34: oak forest to spruce forest) have b
Page 35 and 36: Figure 3.6: Detailed look at Kernel
Page 37: Figure 3.8: A gallery of satellite
Page 41 and 42: through nodes or across edges. Unli
Page 43 and 44: Integration with Other Metrics: The
Page 45 and 46: CHAPTER Results: 5 Scores for the S
Page 47 and 48: Results by Setting: This section pr
Page 49 and 50: Map 5.1: Resilience scores for L-CO
Page 51 and 52: Map 5.2: Resilience scores for L-GR
Page 53 and 54: Map 5.3: Resilience scores for L-GR
Page 55 and 56: Map 5.4: Resilience scores for L-FI
Page 57 and 58: Map 5.5: Resilience scores for L-MA
Page 59 and 60: Map 5.6: Resilience scores for L-SE
Page 61 and 62: Map 5.7: Resilience scores for LSED
Page 63 and 64: Map 5.8 Resilience scores for L-CAL
Page 65 and 66: Map 5.9 Resilience scores for L-MOD
Page 67 and 68: Map 5.10: Resilience scores for LGR
Page 69 and 70: Map 5.11: Resilience scores for L-S
Page 71 and 72: Map 5.12: Resilience scores for L-
Page 73 and 74: LOW ELEVATION COASTAL SETTINGS Sett
Page 75 and 76: Map 5.13: Resilience scores for L-C
Page 77 and 78: Map 5.14: Resilience scores for L-C
Page 79 and 80: Map 5.15: Resilience scores for LCO
Page 81 and 82: MID ELEVATION SETTINGS Settings tha
Page 83 and 84: Map 5.16: Resilience scores for MGR
Page 85 and 86: Map 5.17: Resilience scores for M-M
Page 87 and 88: Map 5.18: Resilience scores for M-S
Page 89 and 90:
Map 5.19: Resilience scores for M-C
Page 91 and 92:
Map 5.20: Resilience scores for M-M
Page 93 and 94:
Map 5.21: Resilience scores for M-S
Page 95 and 96:
Map 5.22: Resilience scores for M-S
Page 97 and 98:
Map 5.23: Resilience scores for L-
Page 99 and 100:
HIGH ELEVATION SETTINGS Settings, u
Page 101 and 102:
Map 5.24: Resilience scores for H-G
Page 103 and 104:
Map 5.25: Resilience scores for H-S
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Map 5.27: Resilience scores for H-C
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Map 5.29: Resilience scores for ALP
Page 113 and 114:
Map 5.30: STEEP- SED Resilient Site
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 6.1. Estimated resilience an
Page 117 and 118:
To account for the inherent differe
Page 119 and 120:
Partial Ecoregions: Several other e
Page 121 and 122:
Ecoregion Results For each wholly c
Page 123 and 124:
Overlaying the ecoregional portfoli
Page 125 and 126:
Map 6.2: Central Appalachians: Resi
Page 127 and 128:
Map 6.4: Central Appalachians: Foca
Page 129 and 130:
Map 6.6: Central Appalachians: Foca
Page 131 and 132:
Map 6.7: Chesapeake Bay Lowlands: R
Page 133 and 134:
Map 6.9: Chesapeake Bay Lowlands: F
Page 135 and 136:
Map 6.11: Chesapeake Bay Lowlands:
Page 137 and 138:
Map 6.12: High Allegheny Plateau: R
Page 139 and 140:
Map 6.14: High Allegheny Plateau: F
Page 141 and 142:
Map 6.16: High Allegheny Plateau: F
Page 143 and 144:
Map 6.17: Lower New England: Resili
Page 145 and 146:
Map 6.19: Lower New England: Focal
Page 147 and 148:
Map 6.21: Lower New England: Focal
Page 149 and 150:
Map 6.22: North Atlantic Coast: Res
Page 151 and 152:
Map 6.24: North Atlantic Coast: Foc
Page 153 and 154:
Map 6.26: North Atlantic Coast: Foc
Page 155 and 156:
Map 6.27: Northern Appalachian: Res
Page 157 and 158:
Map 6.29: Northern Appalachian: Foc
Page 159 and 160:
Map 6.31: Northern Appalachian: Foc
Page 161 and 162:
The amount of resilient area (the g
Page 163 and 164:
Map 6.32: The highest scoring areas
Page 165 and 166:
Map 6.34: Focal areas with high est
Page 167 and 168:
Map 6.36: Networks of resilient sit
Page 169 and 170:
Map 6.38: The highest scoring areas
Page 171 and 172:
References Anderson M.G. and A. Oli
Page 173 and 174:
NLDC 2001 National Landcover Databa
Page 175 and 176:
Map I1.1: Geophysical Settings of t
Page 177 and 178:
Map I1.3: Elevation Range in the No
Page 179 and 180:
Map I1.5: Landscape Complexity of t
Page 181 and 182:
Map I1.7: Regional flow patterns of
Page 183 and 184:
Table 1. Ranges for elevation class
Page 185 and 186:
attributes a simple matter. Compoun
Page 187 and 188:
Recognizing the ecological importan
Page 189 and 190:
Fig. 2: Landforms in Pawtuckaway St
Page 191 and 192:
within the state. The data was expo
Page 193 and 194:
APPENDIX Species Names IV Species N
Page 195 and 196:
Clayton'S Copper Lycaena claytoni I
Page 197 and 198:
Kirtland'S Snake Clonophis kirtland
Page 199 and 200:
Ringed Bog Haunter Williamsonia lin
Page 201:
Wild Calla Calla palustris Monocot
show all

NE Resilience Report - Conservation Gateway

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?