Modified items

All recently modified items, latest first.

Calendar

Calendar: Private Calendar for the Aquatic Resources CoP

Ecoregion - FWS: Map created by FWS in defining ecoregions - integration of major watershed to define regions.

Appalachian LCC Proposed Subzones All: Map showing all subzones of the Appalachian LCC boundary, based on The Nature Conservancy ecoregions derived from the USFS subsection map (1995).

Appalachian LCC Proposed Subzones 3: Map showing 3 subzones of the Appalachian LCC boundary, based on The Nature Conservancy ecoregions derived from the USFS subsection map (1995).

Appalachian LCC Proposed Subzones 2: Map showing 2 subzones of the Appalachian LCC boundary, based on The Nature Conservancy ecoregions derived from the USFS subsection map (1995).

Maps and GIS-related Materials: Descriptive maps highlighting proposed subzones within the Appalachian LCC area.

NALCC Species List for CCVA: This is the list of species chosen by the North Atlantic LCC to receive CCVA using the NS CCVI methodology. The list represents a selection drawn from: (1) the existing "representative species" (as part of the Designing Sustainable Landscapes project); (2) from a list by the States as representing SGCN (species of greatest conservation need as identified in their State Wildlife Action Plans - SWAPs); and (3) "foundational" species (such as sugar maple that are integral to defining habitats and species assemblages.

NALCC Project Description for a CCVA in the NE: Project description/proposal as submitted to the North Atlantic LCC by NatureServe to conduct a species climate change vulnerability assessment (CCVA) using the NatureServe CCVI methodology. Do not cite or quote without approval of the author(s). Do not distribute beyond this work group. (Also see other item listed - 60 species identified.)

Link to the Conservation Planning Model: by Dr. Rob Balwin, Clemson University. See Video, Model (PPT image), 1-pager briefing paper.

CASRI - 2012: Regarding major habitat restoration efforts across large areas of the AppLCC geography -- the Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative. This annual report is for the Northern portion of the range. A similar Initiative has begun in the Southern extent of the range through the TNC TN Chapter. The Southern Range Spruce distribution is more of a "sky island" distribution.

AppLCC Species List: WG members -- I will attach a copy of the AppLCC species-habitat database we mentioned on the Jan 14/15 meeting, should that be helpful in your work. The following information was provided on how the data were assembled. (1.) Criteria used for assembling the species – i.e., SGCN, Listed/Proposed/Candidate etc. Criteria for assembling the original list were the SGNC species with the addition of federally listed species. (2) How was the habitat association was assigned (and if the habitat classification system was standardized when assigned). With the exception of mussels and fish (used Natureserve scheme for those) the habitat association is not based on any standard habitat classification scheme and is a very broad summary of the habitats listed in the source information. (3) How species were included (i.e., reference to the 75% range. All species that were found (even partially) within the AppLCC boundary were included in this list. Species listed on SWAPs, but not found within the LCC Boundary were deleted. If (by visual inspection of range maps found in the source material) more than 75% of a species range was found with the LCC Boundary, it was coded a YES in the LCC GLOBAL TRUST column - the thought behind this was that the LCC has a global responsibility to preserve those species. (4) Re: plants and what criteria was used to exclude species from the list). • Plants were not included because only one state (Georgia) and the federal list had plants listed (so the ranking of plant species when you do your "how many states is the species found in" analysis would have been heavily skewed, making them seem much less important than they actually are. To be true to the process, I would suggest getting plant lists from each state (maybe S1-S2 species). • Invertebrates were not included simply because I ran out of time cleaning up the list and range information for many of them is not easily available. I do believe they should be included in the final list of species. and would be happy to work on the invert list if you'd like...it would take some coordination with states to get range info. • The fish list was almost finished (data is readily available on Natureserve Explorer) (5) Re: migratory birds handled in assembling this data set. The original list of migratory birds was created using the same process as for all other species. The only difference is that they have two possible habitat associations - breeding habitat and wintering habitat (if applicable) because managing for both of these is important to their conservation. (6) Final note - there may be a few (less than ten) duplicate species because some states had a subspecies listed, while others had the only species listed.

Content from AppLCC Staff: Contains any materials the CCVA Team has requested from AppLCC staff or staff thought might be helpful for the Team's work.

Clark, J.S. et al. Climate change vulnerability of forest biodiversity: climate and competition tracking of demographic rates: Author's Abstract Forest responses to climate change will depend on demographic impacts in the context of competition. Current models used to predict species responses, termed climate envelope models (CEMs), are controversial, because (i) calibration and prediction are based on correlations in space (CIS) between species abundance and climate, rather than responses to climate change over time (COT), and (ii) they omit competition. To determine the relative importance of COT, CIS, and competition for light, we applied a longitudinal analysis of 27 000 individual trees over 6–18 years subjected to experimental and natural variation in risk factors. Sensitivities and climate and resource tracking identify which species are vulnerable to these risk factors and in what ways. Results show that responses to COT differ from those predicted based on CIS. The most important impact is the effect of spring temperature on fecundity, rather than any input variable on growth or survival. Of secondary importance is growing season moisture. Species in the genera Pinus, Ulmus, Magnolia, and Fagus are particularly vulnerable to climate variation. However, the effect of competition on growth and mortality risk exceeds the effects of climate variation in space or time for most species. Because sensitivities to COT and competition are larger than CIS, current models miss the most important effects. By directly comparing sensitivity to climate in time and space, together with competition, the approach identifies which species are sensitive to climate change and why, including the heretofore overlooked impact on fecundity.

Do geographic distribution, niche property and life form explain plants' vulnerability to global change?: Author's abstract: We modelled the future distribution in 2050 of 975 endemic plant species in southern Africa distributed among seven life forms, including new methodological insights improving the accuracy and ecological realism of predictions of global changes studies by: (i) using only endemic species as a way to capture the full realized niche of species, (ii) considering the direct impact of human pressure on landscape and biodiversity jointly with climate, and (iii) taking species' migration into account. Our analysis shows important promises for predicting the impacts of climate change in conjunction with land transformation. We have shown that the endemic flora of Southern Africa on average decreases with 41% in species richness among habitats and with 39% on species distribution range for the most optimistic scenario. We also compared the patterns of species' sensitivity with global change across life forms, using ecological and geographic characteristics of species. We demonstrate here that species and life form vulnerability to global changes can be partly explained according to species' (i) geographical distribution along climatic and biogeographic gradients, like climate anomalies, (ii) niche breadth or (iii) proximity to barrier preventing migration. Our results confirm that the sensitivity of a given species to global environmental changes depends upon its geographical distribution and ecological proprieties, and makes it possible to estimate a priori its potential sensitivity to these changes.

Climate Projections FAQ: USFS guidance on use of downscaled climate data

Determining suitable locations for seed transfer under climate change: A global quantitative method.: Changing climate conditions will complicate efforts to match seed sources with the environments to which they are best adapted. Tree species distributions may have to shift to match new environmental conditions, potentially requiring the establishment of some species entirely outside of their current distributions to thrive. Even within the portions of tree species ranges that remain generally suitable for the species, local populations may not be well-adapted to altered local conditions. To assist efforts to restore forests and to maximize forest productivity in the face of climate change, we developed a set of 30,000 quantitatively defined seed transfer ‘‘ecoregions’’ across the globe.

Beane_2010_WV_red spruce_climate change.pdf: environemental and site-specific variables to model current and future distribution of red spruce forest habitat in WV