fingerprinting native and non-native biodiversity, the theory of biotic acceptance, and, the story...
TRANSCRIPT
Fingerprinting Native and Non-native Biodiversity, The Theory of Biotic Acceptance,
and, the story of a challenging puzzle.
Main Project Web Page http://www.NIISS.org
Tom Stohlgren (USGS), John Schnase/Neal Most Team (NASA),Mohammed Kalkhan (CSU)
Catherine Jarnevich, Tracy Davern, Geneva Chong (USGS),Paul Evangelista and David Barnett (CSU), with help from . . .
Greg Newman, Jim Graham, Jon Freeman, Alycia Waters, Sara Simonson (NREL), John Kartesz (BONAP), Bruce Peterjohn,
Pam Fuller (USGS), Curt Flather (USFS), and many others!
Created Sept. 2004
We define “biotic acceptance” as the tendency of natural ecosystems to accommodate the establishment and coexistence of non-native species despite the presence and abundance of native species.
Puzzle Piece #1: Talentedand enthusiastic research team
We’re simple ecologists,with a ground-up approach!
Small-scale measurements?
1. Woody Turner’s “Biological Fingerprinting” workshop in NY – a challenge to scale-up!
2. Local, state, national and international, interest in invasive species science and biodiversity.
3. Partnerships with scientists and program managers who are not afraid to think big (Jim, John, Ed, Woody, the Jeff’s, Neal (NASA); Sue, Sharon, Bob, Mark, Pam (USGS) and many others.
4. A talented and enthusiastic research team.
What allowed us to Scale-Up?
Multi-scale Sampling Matters! 1-m2 subplots four 1000-m2 plots
Two Rocky Mt. veg. types positive positive
Two Grassland veg. types negative positive
Puzzle Piece #2: Carefulground-based, multi-scale measurements
Pipestone NMTallgrass Prairie
Ponderosa Pine
Wind Cave NPMixed Grass Prairie
Wild Horse NWPCushion Plant
Yellowstone N.P.Wet Meadow
Charles Russell NWRNorthern Mixed Prairie
Shortgrass SteppeRiparian, Sage
Bighorn Canyon NRAN. Mixed grassRiparian
Grand Staircase-Escalante NMDesert ShrubDesert MixedGrassRabbitbrushSage, BlackbrushJuniper, Desert ShortgrassPinyon Pin-Pinyon-JuniperPinyon-Juiper-ManzanitaPinyon-Juniper-OakPinyon-Juniper-SageAspen, SpringWet MeadowPerennial RiparianMountain Shrub
Old Aspen
Mixed grass
Rocky Mountain N.P.TundraSublapine-Limber PineSpruce FirLodgepole PineDouglas FirPonderosa PineWillowWet MeadowDry MeadowAspen
37 Vegetation typesMean = 19.6 plots/typeMedian = 11 plots per type727 1000-m2 subplots7,042 1-m2 subplots
Puzzle Piece #3: Comparable measurements in many vegetation types and biomes.
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 10 100 1000
y = 0.033x2 + 0.102x – 0.028R2 = 0.132P < 0.0001
Plot Area (m2)
Slo
pe
of
Nat
ive
to N
on
-n
ativ
eS
pec
ies
Ric
hn
ess
Tallgrass
Aspen CO
Spring
Biotic acceptance increases among communities (regionally) and the changing relationship may be non-linear.
Puzzle Piece #4: Understanding the effects of scale on alpha diversity.
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20 25
y = 0.01x2 -0.09x + 0.63R2 = 0.43P = 0.0001
Native Species Accumulation per Plot
Non-
native S
pecie
s A
ccum
ula
tion p
er
Plo
t
Spring
Wet Mdw., UTIrrigated Shortgrass
Cush. Mixed Grass
Pinyon-JuniperTundra
Willow
Wet Mdw., CO
Aspen
Spruce-Fir
Biotic acceptance increases more in communitieshigh in beta diversity (i.e., high species accumulation curves;and high/optimum resources – water, light, nutrients, warmth).
Vegetation-type- and regional-scalePuzzle Piece #5: Understanding the effects of scale on Beta diversity:i.e., at regional scales.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Non-native Species Richness
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Non
-na
tive
Spe
cie
s C
ove
r
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Non-native Species Richness
0
1
2
3
Non
-na
tive
Spe
cie
s B
iom
ass
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Non-native Species Richness
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Re
l. N
on-n
ativ
e S
pe
cies
Cov
er
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Non-native Species Richness
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Re
l. N
on-n
ativ
e S
pe
cies
Bio
mas
s
y = 0.89x - 0.12R2 = 0.57P = 0.0001
y = 2.20x - 0.20R2 = 0.58P = 0.0001
y = 0.14x - 0.002R2 = 0.43P = 0.0001
y = 1.50x + 0.34R2 = 0.52P = 0.0001
a
c d
b
Biotic acceptance may increase with increasing establishment of non-native species.
This appears to be a much stronger force than the negative effects of native species richness and biomass with R2 values between 0.43 and 0.58.
Puzzle Piece #6: Understandingtemporal changes in diversity:i.e., 400 years of invasion and continuing.
Pipestone NMTallgrass Prairie
Ponderosa Pine
Wind Cave NPMixed Grass Prairie
Wild Horse NWPCushion Plant
Yellowstone N.P.
Wet Meadow
Charles Russell NWRNorthern Mixed Prairie
Shortgrass SteppeRiparian, Sage
Bighorn Canyon NRAN. Mixed grassRiparian
Grand Staircase-Escalante NMDesert ShrubDesert MixedGrassRabbitbrushSage, BlackbrushJuniper, Desert ShortgrassPinyon Pin-Pinyon-JuniperPinyon-Juiper-ManzanitaPinyon-Juniper-OakPinyon-Juniper-SageAspen, SpringWet MeadowPerennial RiparianMountain Shrub
Old AspenMixed grass
Rocky Mountain N.P.TundraSublapine-Limber PineSpruce FirLodgepole PineDouglas FirPonderosa PineWillowWet MeadowDry MeadowAspen
Gilbert andLechowicz. 2005
Brown and Peet.2003, Friedly et al.2004
Brunoet al. 2004
The Present
Puzzle Piece #7 Link with other studies – Past, present, and future:Stohlgren et al. 1997, 1999; Lonsdale 1999, Levine 2000, Stohlgren et al. 2001, 2003
Keeley et al.2003
Davies etal. 2005
Many other studies in different vegetation types are demonstrating biotic acceptance at multiple spatial scales or large scales.
Sax2002,Dark2004
Jim QuinnData
Bob PeetVegBank Data
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
California
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
All States
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
CO, UT,NM, AZ
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
FL, GA,MS, LA
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
NY, NH,PA, ME
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
WA, OR,ID
Native Plant Species Density per County Native Plant Species Density per County
Non
-nat
ive
Pla
nt S
peci
es D
ensi
ty p
er C
ount
y
Non
-nat
ive
Pla
nt S
peci
es D
ensi
ty p
er C
ount
y
R2 = 0.90y = 0.52x2 +0.07x + 0.001
R2 = 0.95y = 0.40x2 +0.02x – 0.008
R2 = 0.96y = 0.45x2 +0.24x - 0.005
R2 = 0.65y = 0.046x2 +0.13x - 0.002
R2 = 0.98y = 0.59x2 +1.2x – 0.02
R2 = 0.71y = 0.79x2 -0.04x + 0.005
Biotic Acceptance strengthens at regional scales: Stohlgren et al. 2005a (Ecology, In Press)
Stohlgren et al. 2005a -- Geez! Those are very high R2 values!
Puzzle Piece #8: regional verification.
Methods: (1) Gather data; (2) Assess data quality; (3) evaluate patterns (GIS maps, regressions, cross-correlations
Round GobyRuffe
Bruce Peterjohn(Breeding Bird Survey = 4,000 routes, 10 years, and bird atlases = life times ofbirding)
Pam Fuller, South Florida-Caribbean Science Center, USGS (10 years ofResearch, >200,000 records and Larry Master, NatureServe’s huge database).
John Kartesz, Biota of North America Program, Univ. North Carolina. (46 states,Over 3000 counties, 500,000 records,10 years of research, standard reference).
Stohlgren, Barnett, and Flather are just “data miners”
Stohlgren et al. 2005b. Species richness and patterns of invasion in plants, birds, and fishes in the United States. Biological Invasions (In Press)
Puzzle Piece #9: Gather and evaluate national databases.
> 1080
> 170
Native plant species/county
Non-native plant species/county
Native bird species/county
Non-indigenous bird species/county
Non-indigenous fish species/watershed
Native fish species/watershed
Density (#/km2) of plant and bird species in 3004 counties in the conterminous U.S.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.50.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Native Plant Density
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Non-native Plant Density
Native Plant Density Native Bird Density
Non
-nat
ive
Pla
nt D
ensi
ty
Non
-nat
ive
Bir
d D
ensi
tyN
on-n
ativ
e B
ird
Den
sity
Non
-nat
ive
Bir
d D
ensi
ty
R2 = 0.92
R2 = 0.74 R2 = 0.72
R2 = 0.90
y = 0.057x2 + 0.027x + 0.001
y = 0.52x2 + 0.071x + 0.001 y = 0.136x2 + 0.062x
y = 0.04x2 - 0.005x+ 0.001
Biotic Acceptance crosses taxa: Stohlgren et al. 2005b (Biological Invasions, In Press)Puzzle Piece #10: Quantify cross-taxa patterns Stohlgren et al. 2005b Biological Invasions (in press)
Results are encouraging, so far . . .• Native plant, bird, and fish densities generally track
latitude, temperature, precip., and each other (i.e., habitat heterogeneity) all “proven” factors of “local determinism,” but no sign of the “saturation of species.”
• Human factors (population, road density, land-use change) are weakly correlated to native diversity, and more strongly correlated to non-native diversity, but environmental factors may be more proximate predictors of native and non-native species diversity.
• At county scales, non-native species densities also track native species densities (for plants, birds, and fish) – and the biological groups track each other – “the rich get richer” within and across biological groups, and this pattern is strongly predictable!
This is great!
•Multiple data types
•
•Upload via the web in three formats– Palm programs (weed mapping and
vegetation survey)– GIS Shapefile– Tab-delimited text file
• User maps fields to database fields• Require specific format (e.g. standardized measurements)
National Institute of Invasive Species Science National Institute of Invasive Species Science Global Organism Detection and Monitoring SystemGlobal Organism Detection and Monitoring System
Objective:Objective: Capturing information (location data, species characteristics, and environmental attributes) on all taxa of invasive species to detect, control, and monitor their spread. Integrating these data to serve land managers, land owners, researchers, government officials, and the public.
From the field…From the field…
To the modeling…To the modeling…
Tamarisk
Filed crews use palmtops downloaded to the database via phones or computers.
Rocky Mountain National Park
APHIS
• Current and potential abundance and distribution
• Probability maps• Gaps in knowledge from uncertainty maps• Smart surveys• Select priority species and sites• Vulnerability and risk analysis
URL: http://www.niiss.org
To the database…To the database…•SQL Server- extensible and standardized•Three main, required fields
– Area: geographic location– Visit: date area was visited– OrganismData: unique organism id for a visit
•Capture metadata, auxiliary data, spatial data (e.g. shapefile for area), treatments (control information), etc.
To the future…To the future…•Tentative release date September 2005•E-mail new species report to manager•On-line modeling capabilities•Download selected data•PDF report with map, profile, control information, and model
To the web…To the web…•Based on enterprise database, custom COM objects, and ASP pages
•Interactive map displaying invasive species distributions
•Add new locations by clicking the map•Query the database by species, project, or area•Real-time statistics and links to research•Species profiles•Watch lists
Probability of occurrence for leafy spurge in Colorado modeled and tested using informations from 45 datasets.
Puzzle Piece #11: Improve data handling and promote data sharing.
Puzzle Piece #12: Improve data accessibility --
www.niiss.org
No Data1-50
51-100101-200201-300301-903 HI
Nation
Site
County, State, Region
Need to know:1. Current distribution and abundance,2. Data completeness,3. Potential dist. and abund.,4. Potential rate of spread,5. Risks/Impacts (env. & econ & human health)6. Containment Potential7. Opportunity costs8. Legal mandates
To select Priority Species and Priority Sites
Rarely done
Requires modeling
Puzzle Piece #13: Developing strategies for others to effectively use your data, capabilities, and services – e.g., Risk Assessment and Early Detection / Rapid Response Needs
Stohlgren, T. and J. Schnase. 2005. Biological hazards: What we need to know about invasive species. Risk Analysis Journal (In Press)
For more information see www.NIISS.org
Puzzle Piece #14: Improve spatial modeling and forecasting capabilities.THE KEY PIECE TO THE PUZZLE!
10 Years
Preliminary Model of Potential Spread in 10 Years
ContainmentBoundary
Early DetectionRapid Response Sites
PrioritySurvey Sites
Control/RestorationMonitoringSites
“Biomass Maps” (g/0.5m2)
Hackberry Canyon Watershed, Utah
0 1 2 30.5Kilometers
Puzzle Piece #15: Adjust to changing customer needs.
Tamarisk locations
“Presence Maps”
For more information see www.NIISS.org
We have many pieces of the puzzle in place.We are integrating across disciplines and programs (NASA/USGS).
We have made progress in many areas.We are producing valuable products.
We still have much of our work ahead of us to complete the puzzle.Great ResearchTeam
Fail-proofWeb-service
Alpha, Beta, and Gamma diversity
Many more datasets
Many more taxa(diseases/pathogens)
Cluster computingand modeling
Fine-ScaleMapsSpp. +habitats
Links to other studies
Regional &National data
Backup systems
ImprovedDecisionSupport
AdditionalSpatial &Temporal models
Improveddata handlingand access
Local/Regional verification
Cross-Taxa tests
Automateddata ingest andmodeling
Multi-scaleSurveys
Customers are lining up
EDRR
NIISS
Webfocusandtools
Lots on invaders! More every day!Plant, Animals, and Diseases
Aquatic and Terrestrial
No Data1-50
51-100101-200201-300301-903 HI
2. Difficult: Issues of scaling, data synergy, data hording, limited funds, multiple spatial scales, multiple biological groups, and human and animal behavior. It also involves a “Grand Challenge” Ecological forecasting of biological organisms – frontiers in science.
3. Costly: Prevention, early detection and rapid assessment, survey and monitoring, research, and restoration carry a high price.
BUT – the cost of inaction is far greater $120 B/yr,
lost production, increased maintenance, species loss, habitat degradation, costs to human health!
Managing Invasive Species is:
1. Urgent: Extremely high demand for meeting more customers needs. Need technology assisted field techniques; iterative field and modeling methods for invasive species surveys; data entry/mapping tools linked to large relational databases, remote sensing, and GIS tools, and economic analyses – NOW!
1. Over much of the US, and maybe the globe, “the rich get richer.”
2. The invasion is in the early stages.3. Establishment + inevitable
disturbance will facilitate future invasion.
4. More sites will become dominated by invaders over time.
5. Species extinction will be slow, but significant, relative to the invasion.
6. Coexistence is the rule – but extirpation, hybridization, habitat degradation, diseases, pathogens, and extinction are inevitable!
Biodiversity Outlook:
