predicting future potential climate-biomes for the yukon, northwest territories, and alaska
DESCRIPTION
Predicting Future Potential Climate-Biomes for the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Alaska. Goals. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Predicting Future Potential Climate-Biomes
for the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Alaska
Goals1) Develop climate-based land-cover categories (cliomes)
for Alaska and western Canada using down-scaled gridded historic climate data from the Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP) and cluster analysis
2) Link the resulting cliomes to land cover classes, and define each biome by both climate and ecosystem characteristics.
3) Couple these cliomes with SNAP’s climate projections, and create predictions for climate-change-induced shifts in cliome ranges and locations.
4) Use the results to identify areas within Alaska, the Yukon and NWT that are least likely to change, and those that are most likely to change over the course of this century.
BackgroundFollow-up to Connecting Alaska Landscapes into the Future Project
Broader spatial scopeMore input dataClustering methodology
3
Improvements over Phase IExtended scope to northwestern CanadaUsed all 12 months of data, not just 2Eliminated pre-defined biome/ecozone
categories in favor of model-defined groupings (clusters)Eliminates false line at US/Canada borderCreates groups with greatest degree of intra-
group and inter-group dissimilarityGets around the problem of imperfect mapping of
vegetation and ecosystem typesAllows for comparison and/or validation against
existing maps of vegetation and ecosystems
Sampling Extent
Area of Canada selected for cluster analysis. Selected area is lightly shaded, and the unselected area is blue. The red line includes all ecoregions that have any portion within NWT. Limiting total area improves processing capabilities.
Historical Climate Trends:Ice Breakup DataIce breakup dates for the Tanana (left) and
Yukon (right) Rivers for the full recorded time periods. Days are expressed as ordinal dates. A statistically significant trend toward earlier thaw dates can be found for both rivers.
y = -0.1825x + 128.69R² = 0.1982
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
y = -0.0579x + 133.71R² = 0.1371
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
18
96
19
01
19
06
19
11
19
16
19
21
19
26
19
31
19
36
19
41
19
46
19
51
19
56
19
61
19
66
19
71
19
76
19
81
19
86
19
91
19
96
20
01
20
06
20
11
Methods: cluster analysisCluster analysis is the statistical
assignment of a set of observations into subsets so that observations in the same cluster are similar in some sense.
It is a method of “unsupervised learning” – where all data are compared in a multidimensional space and classifying patterns are found in the data.
Clustering is common for statistical data analysis and is used in many fields.
Example of a dendrogram. Clusters can be created by cutting off this tree at any vertical level, creating (in this case) from one to 29 clusters.
Methods: SNAP climate models
SNAP is a collaborative network of the University of Alaska, state, federal, provincial, and local agencies, NGOs, and industry partners.
Its mission is to provide timely access to scenarios of future conditions in Alaska and the Arctic for more effective planning by decision-makers, communities, and industry.
Calculated concurrence of 15 models with data for 1958-2000 for surface air temperature, air pressure at sea level, and precipitation
Used root-mean-square error(RMSE) evaluation to select the 5 models that performed best for Alaska and northwestern Canada
Focused on A1B, B2, and A1 emissions scenarios
Downscaled course resolution GCM data to 2km
SNAP data based on CRU historical datasets and IPCC Global Circulation (GCM) models
GCM output (ECHAM5)Figure 1A from Frankenberg st al., Science, Sept. 11, 2009
Methods: Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM)
The dissimilarity matrix describes pairwise distinction between objects.
The algorithm PAM computes representative objects, called medoids whose average dissimilarity to all the objects in the cluster is minimal
Each object of the data set is assigned to the nearest medoid.
PAM is more robust than the well-known kmeans algorithm, because it minimizes a sum of dissimilarities instead of a sum of squared Euclidean distances, thereby reducing the influence of outliers.
PAM is a standard procedure
Resolution limitations For Alaska, Yukon, and BC, SNAP uses 1961-1990 climatologies from
PRISM, at 2 km For all other regions of Canada SNAP uses climatologies from CRU,
at 10 minutes lat/long (~18.4 km) In clustering these data, the differences in scale and gridding
algorithms led to artificial incongruities across boundaries. The solution was to cluster across the whole region using CRU data,
but to project future climate-biomes using PRISM, where available, to maximize resolution and sensitivity to slope, aspect, and proximity to coastlines.
CRU data and SNAP outputs after PRISM downscaling
How many clusters?Choice is
mathematically somewhat arbitrary, since all splits are valid
Some groupings likely to more closely match existing land cover classifications
How many clusters are defensible?
How large a biome shift is “really” a shift from the conservation perspective?
Sample cluster analysis showing 5 clusters, based on CRU 10’ climatologies. This level of detail was deemed too simplistic to meet the needs of end users.Sample cluster
analysis showing 30 clusters, based on CRU 10’ climatologies. This level of detail was deemed too complex to meet the needs of end users, as well as too fine-scale for the inherent uncertainties of the data.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 25 30 40 50
Ave
rage
Sih
ouett
e W
idth
Number of Clusters Returned
Mean silhouette width for varying numbers of clusters between 3 and 50. High values in the selected range between 10 and 20 occur at 11, 17, and 18.
How many clusters?
Eighteen-cluster map for the entire study area. This cluster number was selected in order to maximize both the distinctness of each cluster and the utility to land managers and other stakeholders.
Cluster certainty based on silhouette width. Note that certainty is lowest along boundaries.
Describing the clusters: temperature
Mean seasonal temperature by cluster. For the purposes of this graph, seasons are defined as the means of 3-months periods, where winter is December, January, and February, spring is March, April, May, etc.
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
winter spring summer fall
Mea
n Se
ason
al Te
mpe
ratu
re (°
C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Describing the clusters:precipitation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
117 174 198 206 243 274 281355 284
561390 420
586
857
474 545
2249
443Tota
l Ann
ual P
recip
itatio
n(ra
inw
ater
equ
ivale
nt, m
m)
Precipitation by cluster. Mean annual precipitation varies widely across the clustering area, with Cluster 17 standing out as the wettest.
Cluster 17
Describing the clusters:growing degree days, season length, and snowfall
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Gro
win
g de
gree
day
s
Day
s ab
ove
free
zing
cluster
Days above freezing
Growing Degree Days
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Tota
l pre
cipi
tatio
n, m
m (
rain
wat
er e
quiv
alen
t)
Clusters
total for months with mean temperature below freezing
total for months with mean temperature above freezing
Length of above-freezing season and GDD by cluster. Days above freezing were estimated via linear interpolation between monthly mean temperatures. Growing degree days (GDD) were calculated using 0°C as a baseline.
Warm-season and cold-season precipitation by cluster. The majority of precipitation in months with mean temperatures below freezing is assumed to be snow (measured as rainwater equivalent).
Describing the clusters: existing land classification
http://land cover.usgs.gov/nalcms.php
North American Land Change Monitoring System (NALCMS 2005)
AVHRR Land cover, 1995
Created 2/4/11 3:00 PM by Conservation Biology Institute
GlobCover 2009
Alaska Biomes and Canadian Ecoregions.
Cluster Number AVHRR
Canadian and Alaskan
Ecoregions GlobCover NALCMS
1 Open shrub Northern Arctic Sparse (<15%) vegetation barren lands
2 Open shrub Southern Arctic Sparse (<15%) vegetationpolar or subpolar grassland
lichen moss
3 Open shrub Alaska Arctic Sparse (<15%) vegetationpolar or subpolar grassland
lichen moss
4 Closed Shrubland Alaska Arctic Sparse (<15%) vegetationpolar or subpolar grassland
lichen moss
5 Open shrub Southern Arctic Sparse (<15%) vegetationpolar or subpolar grassland
lichen moss
6 Closed Shrubland Taiga Shield Sparse (<15%) vegetationpolar or subpolar grassland
lichen moss
7 Woodland Taiga Plain Sparse (<15%) vegetationsubpolar taiga needleleaf
forest
8 Wooded Grassland Boreal CordilleraOpen (15-40%) needleleaved deciduous or
evergreen forest (>5m)temperate or subpolar
needleleaf forest
9 Woodland Alaska BorealOpen (15-40%) needleleaved deciduous or
evergreen forest (>5m)temperate or subpolar
shrubland
10 Grassland Western Tundra Sparse (<15%) vegetationtemperate or subpolar
shrubland
11 Woodland Taiga Shield Sparse (<15%) vegetationsubpolar taiga needleleaf
forest
12 Woodland Taiga PlainOpen (15-40%) needleleaved deciduous or
evergreen forest (>5m)temperate or subpolar
needleleaf forest
13 Open shrub Taiga Cordillera Sparse (<15%) vegetation barren lands
14 Evergreen Needleleaf ForestMontane Cordillera
Open (15-40%) needleleaved deciduous or evergreen forest (>5m)
temperate or subpolar needleleaf forest
15 Evergreen Needleleaf Forest Boreal PlainOpen (15-40%) needleleaved deciduous or
evergreen forest (>5m) cropland
16 Evergreen Needleleaf Forest Boreal ShieldOpen (15-40%) needleleaved deciduous or
evergreen forest (>5m)temperate or subpolar
needleleaf forest
17 Bare GroundNorth Pacific
Maritime Sparse (<15%) vegetationtemperate or subpolar
needleleaf forest
18 Grassland Prairie
Closed to open (>15%) herbaceous vegetation (grassland, savannas or
lichens/mosses) cropland
Comparison of cluster-derived cliomes with existing land cover designations. This table shows only the highest-percentage designation for each land cover scheme. Color-coding helps to distinguish categories.
Baseline maps
Modeled cliomes for the historical baseline years, 1961-1990. As in all projected maps, Alaska and the Yukon are shown at 2km resolution based on PRISM downscaling, and the Northwest Territories are shown at 18.4 km resolution based on CRU downscaling.
Projected cliomes for the five-model composite, A1B (mid-range ) climate scenario.
Alaska and the Yukon are shown at 2km resolution and NWT at 10 minute lat/long resolution .
Future Projections
2000’s
2030’s
2060’s
2090’s
Projected cliomes for the A2 emissions scenario. This scenario assumes higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, as compared to the A1B scenario.Projected cliomes for the B1 emissions scenario. This scenario assumes lower concentrations of greenhouse gases, as compared to the A1B scenario.
2000’s
2030’s
2060’s
2090’s
Future Projections
Projected cliomes for single models. The five GCMs offer differing projections for 2090.
Future Projections
Projected change and resilience under three emission scenarios. These maps depict the total number of times models predict a shift in cliome between the 2000’s and the 2030’s, the 2030’s and the 2060’s, and the 2060’s and the 2090’s. Note that number of shifts does not necessarily predict the overall magnitude of the projected change.
Future Projections
Discussion: Interpreting results
Comparison with existing land cover designations
Assessment of which shifts are most significant in terms of vegetation communities
Linkages with species-specific research Habitat
characteristics/requirements
Dispersal abilityHistorical shifts
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Bare Ground
Cropland
Grassland
Open Shrubland
Closed Shrubland
Wooded Grassland
Woodland
Mixed Forest
Deciduous Broadleaf Forest
Evergreen Needleleaf Forest
Water (and Goode's interrupted space)
Dominant AVHRR land cover types by cluster number. All land cover categories that occur in 15% or more of a given cluster are included.
Discussion: Real-world limitations of modeled resultsChanges are unlikely to happen smoothly and spontaneously,
and are certainly not going to happen instantlySeed dispersal takes timeChanges to underlying soils and permafrost take even longerIn many cases, intermediate stages are likely to occur when
climate change dictates the loss of permafrost , a new forest type, or new hydrologic conditions
Even in cases when biomes do shift on their own, they almost never do so as cohesive unitsTrophic mismatches are likelyInvasive species may have greater dispersal abilities than
native onesIt may become increasingly difficult to even define what an
“invasive species” is
Discussion: Management implications
Identification of refugiaIdentification of vulnerable
species/areasCollaboration and dialogue
between modelers and field researchers
Selecting focus of future research
Shift from “preservation” to “adaptation”
Toolik Lake Catherine Campbell http://www.polartrec.com/expeditions/changing-tundra-landscapes/journals/2008-07-22
Brian Bergamaschi (USGS) sampling wells at Bonanza Creek LTER site.
http://hydrosciences.colorado.edu/research/govt_partners.php
Accessing project documents and dataAll project inputs and outputs are available to
the publicThe final report (full report, main text only, or
appendices only) can be downloaded here: http://www.snap.uaf.edu/project_page.php?projectid=8
Maps and data are also available in GIS formats; contact SNAP for further information ([email protected])
AcknowledgmentsThe US portion of this study was made possible by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, on behalf of the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC), with Karen Murphy as project lead and assistance from Joel Reynolds and Jennifer Jenkins (USFWS). The Canadian portion of this study was made possible by The Nature Conservancy Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Government Canada and Government Northwest Territories, with Evie Whitten as project lead. Data and analysis were provided by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP) program and Ecological Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis for the Land and Seascape Laboratory (EWHALE) lab, with Nancy Fresco, Michael Lindgren, and Falk Huettmann as project leads. Further input was provided by stakeholders from other interested organizations.
We would also like to acknowledge the following organizations and individuals:
Karen Clyde, Government YT
David Douglas, US Geological Survey Evelyn Gah, Government NWT Lois Grabke, Ducks Unlimited Canada Troy Hegel, Government YT James Kenyon, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Wendy Loya , the Wilderness Society Lorien Nesbitt , Déline Renewable Resources Council Thomas Paragi, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Michael Palmer, TNC
Scott Rupp , SNAPBrian Sieben, Government NWTStuart Slattery, Ducks Unlimited CanadaJim Sparling, Government NWT