Upload
javon-burnam
View
224
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Using Geographic Information Using Geographic Information Systems in Predicting Reference Systems in Predicting Reference
Communities for Landscape Scale Communities for Landscape Scale RestorationRestoration
bybyESRA OZDENEROL, PhD
University of MemphisDepartment of Earth Sciences
A nonprofit, community-based organization that exists to help communities restore, manage and learn about their natural environment through volunteer involvement.
Oak SavannaOak Savanna
The Vision …The Vision …
BIG RIVERS PARTNERSHIP PROJECT AREABIG RIVERS PARTNERSHIP PROJECT AREA
Collaborators:Collaborators:
Cynthia Lane, Ph.D.
Greg Noe, Ph.D.
Bart Richardson
Methods:Methods:
1. Land Cover Classification data
2. Environmental data
3. Data categorized
4. Statistical Analyses
5. Predictive Model
6. Filters
1. LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION DATA 1. LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION DATA MLCCSMLCCS
Hierarchical Classification System: Cultural or Natural/Semi-natural Five level system beginning with vegetation type or
dominant cover type % impervious estimated for cultural cover types Modifiers for adding information for specific polygons
2. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA2. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Data obtained for each HQN and Restorable site (polygon):
Soil Texture and Drainage
Slope and Aspect
Shade
Soil Drainage and Texture
USDA-NRCS, Official Soil Series description
Soil characteristics commonly affecting the establishment and persistence of perennial native vegetation
Predominant drainage and texture in upper horizon
SoilSoil
Soils Drainage:
Drainage class: 1. = Excessively drained,
Somewhat Excessively drained
2. = Well drained, Moderately well drained
3. = Somewhat Poorly Drained, Poorly drained, Very poorly drained
Drainage class diversity
Soil Texture:
S = Sand
L = Loam
O = Organic
Texture class diversity
U.S.G.S. 30 meter digital elevation model
Converted to grid format using ArcView Spatial Analyst
Slope - mean and standard deviation for each site
Slope and Aspect: Slope and Aspect:
Aspect: Aspect: Mean aspect & angular dispersion
(aspect variability) Mean aspect converted to sine
and cosine using circular statistics
Shade layer generated using DEM and ArcView Spatial Analyst
Hottest day and time of day modeled
Shade:Shade:
High Quality Native Community
Disturbed
Unsuitable
Unknown
Restorable
3. SITES CATEGORIZED3. SITES CATEGORIZED
Disturbed = Disturbed = soils classified as “urban lands”, “udorthents”, and “gravel pits”; >75% impervious cover
Unknown =Unknown = no soils data or aspect
Unsuitable =Unsuitable = wetlands;
>90% impervious
High Quality Native Community # sites Oak Forest (mesic, dry) 228
Maple Basswood Forest 44
Aspen Forest (temporarily flooded) 14
Floodplain Forest (silver maple) 212
Lowland Hardwood Forest 48
White Pine Hardwood Forest 2
Oak Woodland Brushland 120
Mesic Prairie 8
Dry Prairie (barrens, bedrock bluff, sand gravel) 58
Wet Meadow (shrub) 11
Dry Oak Savanna (sand gravel) 12
Mesic Oak Savanna 23
Restorable Cover Type # polys #ha Sparse trees + turf/grassland 647 3563
Agricultural crops 142 1835
Turf/grassland 481 1556
Deciduous trees 278 1437
Boxelder/Green ash forest 263 690
Mixed woodland, disturbed 187 397
Mixed coniferous & deciduous 28 147
Coniferous trees 55 144
3. STATISTICAL ANALYSES3. STATISTICAL ANALYSES
1. Tested relationship between High Quality Native Communities and environmental characteristics
2. Applied results of analysis to Restorable polygons to predict target community
3. STATISTICAL ANALYSES3. STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Factor analysis
Linear discriminant function analysis
High Quality Native Community Oak Forest (mesic, dry)
Maple Basswood Forest
Aspen Forest (temporarily flooded)
Floodplain Forest (silver maple)
Lowland Hardwood Forest
White Pine Hardwood Forest
Oak Woodland Brushland
Mesic Prairie
Dry Prairie (barrens, bedrock bluff, sand gravel)
Wet Meadow (shrub)
Dry Oak Savanna (sand gravel)
Mesic Oak Savanna
21 full, 12 aggregated
RESULTS – RESULTS – Full AnalysisFull Analysis
All environmental variables significantly different (Wilks’ Lamda, P<.00001)
94.8% of variation explained
6 discriminant functions statistically significant
9 communities reliably predicted >50%
RESULTS – RESULTS – Aggregated AnalysisAggregated Analysis
All environmental variables significantly different (Wilks’ Lamda, P<.00001), except shade
98.3% of variation explained
6 discriminant functions statistically significant
6 communities reliably predicted >50%
Predicted Native CommunitiesPredicted Native Communities
Undifferentiable communities:Undifferentiable communities:
Oak forest
Maple basswood forest
Oak woodland brushland
Mesic prairie
Aspen forest
Lowland hardwood forest
3. FILTERS3. FILTERS
Cost, Ease of restoration
Rare native community
Landscape – Patch size & Connectivity
Cost Filter:Cost Filter:
Ease of Conversion
Patch size (polygon size)
% impervious surface
Access (slope)
NATIVE COMMUNITYMesic prairie
Oak woodland/
brush Oak
Forest Maple-
basswood
boxelder/green ash forest 3 4 2 2coniferous trees 4 4 3 3cropland 1 2 3 3sparse trees+grassland 3 2 4 4turf 1 2 3 3
Conversion matrix:Conversion matrix:
Patch Size & Connectivity Patch Size & Connectivity Filter:Filter:
Straight line allocation
Existing native communities used as targets
Undifferentiable sites converted to nearest native community
Prioritize restoration sites:Prioritize restoration sites:
Target rare community for restoration
Communities reliably predicted from full analysis
SUMMARY:SUMMARY:
9 full, 6 aggregated communities reliably predicted
Target refined using cost and landscape filters
Method can be used to prioritize sites based on project goals
Acknowledgements:Acknowledgements:
Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Conservation Partners Grant