National Park Service - Inventory & Monitoring Program

Developing Conceptual Models for I&M Networks

John E. Gross

September 6, 2005

(SWAN monitoring plan)

Roadmap

• Key background

• Examples – Who/what are the models for?

• Strategy for getting to the finish line – good, fast, and cheap

• Resources

Uses of conceptual models vary with network maturity

Communicate understanding about ecosystem:

What are the major ecosystems? What do we know about them? What do we need to know?

Ensure selected VS are integrative, comprehensive

Communicate why / how VS are informative and important

Inform sampling design; communication about program

Facilitate integration and synthesis of data: understanding and reporting.

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Implemented

Vanni et al. February 2005. Bioscience 55(2):155-167

Well designed and executed diagrams will be useful at all stages, from selecting VS to future publications of results. Conceptual models frequently appear in the top ecological journals.

Chapter 2 – Conceptual Ecological Models

Have the major ecosystems within the network of parks been identified?

Has the network effectively used conceptual models to help organize, summarize, and communicate complex information (on ecosystems)?

Are the conceptual models sufficiently detailed to provide support for selecting, justifying, and interpreting potential vital signs?

Are the tables and figures, and the narrative supporting the tables and figures in this chapter, clear, complete, and understandable?

Is relevant literature cited; do citations provide valid, credible, and sufficient scientific justification for the models?

Is the treatment and presentation of conceptual models systematic, synthetic and integrative such that interactions within and linkages among ecosystems are described?

Refer to the monitoring plan checklist – chapter 2 & appendices.These are the criteria that reviews will use to evaluate the models.

What you’ll likely to end up with:

• A highly aggregated, holistic model (e.g., Jenny-Chapin),

• mechanistic (process, control, etc.) models of key ecosystems, processes, and perhaps species,

• some state-and-transition models (fire, grazing, invasive plants),

• driver-stressor models focused on priority vital signs (maybe),

• tables with important drivers, responses, resources, etc.,

• detailed narratives,

• currently (September 05), several networks are developing conceptual diagrams for each park in the network. These park-specific models have been very well received by park staff.

Select the model structure for the purpose.Don’t attempt to use a ‘one size fits all’ philosophy

A few observations …

• Construct need-specific models rather than monolithic structures

• Hierarchically structured sets of models have advantages• holistic model provides regional/global context• systematic means to added detail as needed,• makes linkages between model obvious,

• Craft is important. Rushing the final step is like letting a child finish fine furniture.

Who and what are the models for?

Audiences:

• Network staff (there will be turnover)

• Park staff – interpreters, resource specialists, superintendents, operations staff, EPMTs, etc

• Science partners / collaborators / researchers

• Network committees – science, technical, boards

• For NEPA, EIA/EIS, project reviews

• GMP / RSPs - DFC

• WASO Monitoring Plan reviewers

NCPN modifications to Chapin model by Mark Miller (USGS)

What are the overarching, broad-scale constraints and system drivers?

Some key information the models need to communicate

(IAN Newsletter 5: www.ian.umces.edu)

(Mutel and Emerick 1992)

What do the models need to communicate?

General characteristics of ecosystems

(SECN revised Phase 1)

Photographs are information-rich. Use them wisely.

(SECN revised Phase 1 report)

General system characteristics

(Hevesi et al. 2003)

Major environmental gradients are often clear on maps. Nationwide weather gradients are available via PRISM data.

(Knight 1992)

Some models should communicate our understanding of system dynamics.

How do you expect the system to change over time in response to (fire, grazing, climate, restoration, etc)?

How can we manage lands to achieve a desired future condition if we don’t understand system dynamics?

(from http://cires.colorado.edu/limnology/)

An aggregate, simple model can be used to put more detailed submodels in context.

Here’s the broad-scale view of the hydrological cycle.

The next slide is a more detailed consideration of water flow.

Hevesi et al. 2002

Herrick’s model – SCPN Phase 1

A good process model can clearly communicate key links between ecosystem processes and attributes that, together, strongly determine system drivers and responses.

What don’t we know? Where are the most important gaps in our understanding?

Large Carnivores

(Grizzly Bear)

Landbirds (Clark’s

Nutcracker)

Climate

Atmospheric Deposition

Forest insect and disease

(Blister Rust, Pine Beetles)

Fire

WHITEBARK PINE

??

??

GRYN Whitebark pine model

Emphasize the most important elements.

(Vanni et al. 2005)

Forested Watersheds Agricultural Watersheds

Emphasize the important parts

(Walters et al. 2000)

Use line weights, colors, shapes, etc.But don’t go overboard.

Seedlings(#/ha)

Seed bank

Saplings(#/ha)

Trees(#ha)

Snags(#/ha)

Survivaland growth

Survival and growth

Survival rate

Decay,combustion

Seed production / persistence(pollination, granivory, decay, etc)

Fire intensity

Fuel continuity(stand)

Fire frequency:(suppression, prescribed

burning, lightning)

Grazing,thinning

Fire extent

Fuel load: trees & grass

biomass,weather

Fuel continuity(landscape)

Ponderosa pine control model

This model is structurally correct

Fire submodel

What key factor(s) are primarily responsible for the system we observe?

(Gross, unpublished)

Runoff rate

Precipitation

Ground Water

Glaciers

Snow pack

Hydrograph

Nesting

CFS

Hyp

orhe

ic f

low

In-channel CFS

Wat

er t

empe

ratu

re

Hyporheic flow

Rep

rodu

ctiv

e su

cces

s

Temperature

Bull trout

CF

S

Time

Glacial/baseSnow

Season-dependent:Spring = runoffSummer/fall = base

Sed

imen

t tr

ansp

ort

CFS

Con

nect

ivity Spawning

TemperatureIn-channel flow

Hyporheic flow

Surface flowIn-channel flow

Sediment Transport and

Storage

Riparian habitats

Channel and Floodplain Morphology

(connectivity)Flow dynamics: floods, base flow

Water temperatureNutrient content

Landscape:Fire, veg. cover, soil properties

ROMN-GLAC model

What are the important interactions between system components,

and HOW do they affect system dynamics?

From: http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/bremer/ecosystem_dynamics.html

Figure 1: Primary water column nutrient cycles in Bremer River and inputs of phosphates, silicates, DOC, DON and inorganic nitrogen.

A conceptual model of the Bremer River ecosystem has been developed that is suitable for (1) developing a coherent overview of relevant ecological and biogeochemical processes affecting water quality and also for (2) design of a relevant survey sampling program and (3) subsequent design of a numerical simulation model to test water quality improvement strategies.

http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/bremer/ecosystem_dynamics.html

A particularly nice example of a very complex, but still understandable model.

Models vary in scale

Generalized environmental model

Landscape-scale diagrams

Species, site, or habitat models

Ecosystem

Stage-setting; global and regional scale drivers and responses

Environmental gradients; broad-scale drivers; linkages between systems (disturbance, land use)

Dynamics; broad to fine scale factors

Model Scale What it communicates

Detailed mechanisms & feedbacks, stressors->VS

Desirable park-like stand• grassy understory• ~ 100 trees/ac• frequent “cool” ground fires• fires extensive and patchy• minimal influence by exotics

Moderately dense even or mixed-aged stand • many saplings• infrequent fire due to suppression or non-continuous ground fuel• fires likely to be intense, extensive, and stand-replacing

Overgrazing, fire suppression

Prescribed burning, thinning

Dense even-aged stand• stand-replacing fires frequent or infrequent• understory vegetation sparse• fuel load large and continuous• fires intense and spatially extensive

Thin and burn?In

tens

e

crow

n fir

es

Ponderosa pine state and transition model

State and transition models – see the CPN monitoring plans and Lisa Thomas’ presentations

Model strengths and weaknesses

Control models• accurately represent feedbacks and interactions• usually most realistic structure• insights from construction• often complicated and hard to communicate• state dynamics may not be apparent

State and transition• clear representation of alternative states• can be simple• excellent communication with most audiences• generally lack mechanism• usually too general to directly link to vital signs

Driver-stressor models (but be careful of driver/stressor distinction)• provide clear link between agent of change and VS• simple and easy to communicate• no feedbacks• few or no mechanisms• frequently inaccurate and incomplete

A bit on the craft …it makes a BIG difference!!!

Some very basic elements …

• align boxes, both horizontally and vertically

• emphasize key linkages by line weight, style, or colors

• minimize use of colors and shapes

• aggregate lines when possible

• maximize ‘content ink’

• See Tufte: The visual display of quantitative information

Likely a major move to using IAN toolkit or similar for conceptual diagrams, particularly for diagrams of parks

(Schiller et al. 2001. Cons. Ecol 5(1)19)

Health of Forest Plants

Contamination of Forest Plants by Air Pollution

Forest Aesthetics

Woodland Productivity for Forest Products

Habitat Quality for Birds and Deer

Wildlife habitat

Forest structure scenic rating

Bioindicator plants - ozoneCrown conditionLichen communitiesPhotosyntheticaly active radiation - leaf areaRoot ecology

Lichen chemistry

Foliar chemistryDendrochemistry

Visible plant damageRegenerationMortalitySoil classification & physiochemistry

Branch evaluations

Tree growthOverstory diversityVegetation structureDendrochronology

Common-Language Indicators EMAP Indicator names for forests

As published

Same content,with 20 minutes of editing

Simplify where possible

Extensive land use Disturbance regimeIntensive land use Global change

Ecological flowsChanges in effective reserve size

Edge effects Crucial habitat

Ecosystem condition

Ecosystem resilience

Values:WildernessViewshedNight skySoundscape

Lithosphere Hydrosphere Biosphere Atmosphere Cryosphere

Some aspects may be non-spatial

Extensive land use Disturbance regimeIntensive land use Global change

Ecological flowsChanges in effective reserve size

Edge effectsCrucial habitat

Ecosystem condition

Ecosystem resilience

Values:WildernessViewshedNight skySoundscape

Lithosphere Hydrosphere Biosphere Atmosphere Cryosphere

Some aspects may be non-spatial

Same content,simplied

(from landscape workshop, January 2003)

Mechanistically correct models:

- Begin by identifying state variables (population size, N, C, etc)- Rates connect state variables- Feedbacks are from state variables to rates, not rates to rates- Consider flows of information, energy/material- Separate external drivers, sources, & sinks from internal variables- Think about functional form of relationships- Simplicity is a virtue, and a serious challenge

Contents of Chapter 2 (and/or appendix)

• Introduction. Short justification, goals, and philosophy that

guided model development (NCPN).

• Clear table listing all models, w/ figure and page numbers

(revised ROMN)

• Overall description of models and chapter structure (by

ecosystem, park, discipline, or ??)

• Detailed narratives with pertinent, and complete, citations that

closely match and that explain/embellish figures

• Pertinent citations, all in the bibliography

• and, of course, models that meet all the criteria in the checklist

There must be a clear connection between the models and vital signs.

If there’s not, are the models or VS inadequate?

Resources – Don’t reinvent the wheel

Other Networks & reports – see esp. CPNs, UCBN, ROMN, SECN, GRYN

Conceptual model web page: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/ConceptualModels.htm

Mike Scott – Riparian models for CPN. Great report.Landscape effects –Hansen and Gryskiewicz reportFaculty at nearby colleges/universities

Alpine – for start, see Niwot ridge LTER site http://culter.colorado.edu/NWT/research/research.html

Simple models for various systems – GRYN

Integration and Application (IAN) http://www.ian.umces.edu

- symbols toolkit, handbook, professional support

Maddox et al. 1999 – best single paper

Call or email: John Gross, 970 267-2111, john_gross@nps.gov