NE Resilience Report - Conservation Gateway

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 6 – Results: Resilient Sites ........................................................................................................................ 110 Resilience and Vulnerability ..................................................................................................................... 110 Resilience and Geophysical Settings ........................................................................................................ 112 Ecological Regions .................................................................................................................................. 114 Ecoregion Results ..................................................................................................................................... 117 Central Appalachian .................................................................................................................... 120 Chesapeake Bay Lowland ........................................................................................................... 126 High Allegheny Plateau .............................................................................................................. 132 Lower New England – Northern Piedmont ................................................................................. 138 North Atlantic Coast ................................................................................................................... 144 Northern Appalachian - Acadian ................................................................................................ 150 Thirteen-State Region ............................................................................................................................... 156 Composite Map of all Ecoregions ............................................................................................................. 156 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 156 Highest scoring areas for estimated resilience ........................................................................... 159 The most resilient examples of each geophysical setting ........................................................... 160 Focal areas with high estimated resilience .................................................................................. 161 Key places of current and future biodiversity ............................................................................ 162 Networks of resilient sites based on linkages and focal areas ..................................................... 163 Securement status of the focal areas ........................................................................................... 164 Highest scoring areas for estimated resilience by setting across the region ............................... 165 Comparison of scores for full region, individual settings and settings within ecoregion ........... 166 References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 167 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 170 Appendix I: Northern Appalachian-Acadian Foundational Maps ........................................................... 171 Appendix II: Detail on Ecological Land Units ......................................................................................... 178 Appendix III: Detailed Data Sources and Methods .................................................................................. 186 Appendix IV: Species Names used in the Report ..................................................................................... 189
CHAPTER Introduction 1 Climate change is expected to alter species distributions. As species move to adjust to changing conditions, conservationists urgently require a way to prioritize strategic land conservation that will conserve the maximum amount of biological diversity despite shifting distribution patterns (IPCC 2007). Current conservation approaches based on species locations or on predicted species’ responses to climate, are necessary, but hampered by uncertainty. Here we offer a complementary approach, one that aims to identify key areas for conservation based on land characteristics that increase diversity and resilience. The central idea of this project is that by mapping key geophysical settings and evaluating them for landscape characteristics that buffer against climate effects, we can identify the most resilient places in the landscape. Ideally, these places will conserve the full spectrum of physical arenas that create and support species diversity. Additionally, each individual place will offer a range of microclimates and options for species movement, thus maintaining landscape functionality and improving the chances of species’ survival in a changing climate. Our approach is based on observations that species diversity is highly correlated with geophysical diversity in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic (Anderson and Ferree 2010), that species take advantage of the micro-climates available in complex landscapes, and that species can move to adjust to climatic changes if the area is permeable. Thus, the characteristics of geophysical representation, landscape complexity and landscape permeability, are primary concepts in this research. This report has three basic parts: first, we ensure that all geophysical settings are represented in a conservation network (Chapter 2); second, we make certain that the sites within a network are selected for characteristics that increase resilience (Chapter 3); and third, we ensure that the sites are regionally well connected (Chapter 4). The latter two sections introduce new methodologies to quantify the physical and structural aspects of the landscape and explain how we identify important linkages between sites. The metrics developed for estimating site resilience are discussed in the chapters and include models that measure a site’s physical complexity (landform variety, elevation range, and wetland density) and permeability (local connectedness and regional flow patterns). Finally, each metric is calculated for a 13- state U.S. region and the Maritime Provinces of Canada. The results sections of this report (Chapters 5 and 6) identify the network of sites with the highest estimated resilience within each ecological region. As part of the results, we compare the resilient sites identified in the report with sites previously identified for their significant biodiversity. We use the term “resilience” (Gunderson 2000) to refer to the capacity of a site to adapt to climate change while still maintaining diversity, but we do not assume that the species currently located at these sites will necessarily be the same species present in a century or two. Instead, we presume that if conservation succeeds, each setting will support species that thrive in the conditions defined by the physical setting. For example, low elevation limestone valleys will support species that benefit from calcium rich soils, alkaline waters, and cave or karst features, while acidic outwash sands will support a distinctly different set of species. Each geophysical setting, in turn, contains a variety of species habitats and natural communities. A limestone valley, for example, may contain fens, marshes, and riverine wetlands, as well as forests, grasslands or barrens on flats or gently sloping dry terrain. These communities are often associated with the variety of landforms present; our intent was to identify resilient examples of a geophysical setting that encompass a variety of habitats. The value of conserving a spectrum of physical settings is based on extensive empirical evidence (Anderson and Ferree 2010), but there are further conservation choices to make concerning geophysical representation. For example, out of all the possible low elevation limestone valleys that could be Resilient Sites for Terrestrial Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region 1 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: Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Intro
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 and 38: Figure 3.8: A gallery of satellite
Page 39 and 40: Section 3: Combining Resilience Fac
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:
Page 95 and 96:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?