Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJavon Burnam Modified over 9 years ago
1
Using Geographic Information Systems in Predicting Reference Communities for Landscape Scale Restoration by ESRA OZDENEROL, PhD University of Memphis Department of Earth Sciences
2
A nonprofit, community-based organization that exists to help communities restore, manage and learn about their natural environment through volunteer involvement.
4
Oak Savanna
7
The Vision …
13
BIG RIVERS PARTNERSHIP PROJECT AREA
14
Collaborators: Cynthia Lane, Ph.D. Greg Noe, Ph.D. Bart Richardson
15
Methods: 1. Land Cover Classification data 2. Environmental data 3. Data categorized 4. Statistical Analyses 5. Predictive Model 6. Filters
16
1. LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION DATA MLCCS 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
18
2. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Data obtained for each HQN and Restorable site (polygon): Soil Texture and Drainage Slope and Aspect Shade
19
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 Soil
20
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
21
Soil Texture: S = Sand L = Loam O = Organic Texture class diversity
22
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:
23
Aspect: Mean aspect & angular dispersion (aspect variability) Mean aspect converted to sine and cosine using circular statistics
24
Shade layer generated using DEM and ArcView Spatial Analyst Hottest day and time of day modeled Shade:
25
High Quality Native Community Disturbed Unsuitable Unknown Restorable 3. SITES CATEGORIZED
26
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
27
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
28
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
30
3. 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
31
3. STATISTICAL ANALYSES Factor analysis Linear discriminant function analysis
32
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
33
RESULTS – Full 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%
34
RESULTS – Aggregated 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%
35
Predicted Native Communities
36
Undifferentiable communities: Oak forest Maple basswood forest Oak woodland brushland Mesic prairie Aspen forest Lowland hardwood forest
37
3. FILTERS Cost, Ease of restoration Rare native community Landscape – Patch size & Connectivity
38
Cost Filter: Ease of Conversion Patch size (polygon size) % impervious surface Access (slope)
39
Conversion matrix:
41
Patch Size & Connectivity Filter: Straight line allocation Existing native communities used as targets Undifferentiable sites converted to nearest native community
44
Prioritize restoration sites: Target rare community for restoration Communities reliably predicted from full analysis
46
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
47
Acknowledgements: Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Conservation Partners Grant
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.