The Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians in Upstate South Carolina JR Courter, TD Surasinghe, RF Baldwin...
Upstate South Carolina <ul><li>Between 1990 and 2000, developed land grew from 222,745 acres to 576,336 acres  </li></ul><...
Saluda-Reedy Watershed Images from: SC DHEC 2010
Objectives <ul><li>To compare how future development pressure may affect the distributions of birds and amphibians in Sout...
Study Site
Focal Species <ul><li>Birds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eastern Towhee  (common) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Swainson’s Warbler (...
Eastern Towhee <ul><li>Common, year-round resident in SC </li></ul><ul><li>Prefers thickets and edges </li></ul><ul><li>SC...
Swainson’s Warbler <ul><li>Neotropical migrant </li></ul><ul><li>Nests in shrubby undergrowth along riparian corridors </l...
Upland Chorus Frog <ul><li>Primarily a forest species </li></ul><ul><li>Inhabits floodplains and upland woods </li></ul><u...
Shovelnose Salamander <ul><li>Primarily aquatic </li></ul><ul><li>Spends most time in cool upland streams, hides under roc...
GIS applications <ul><li>Gap analysis- uses vegetation types to predict species distributions and compares this informatio...
Scott, J.M. et al. 1993. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity.  Wildlife Monographs, ...
Eastern Towhee- SC Distribution SC Gap Analysis (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/data.html)
Distribution Maps <ul><li>Used species distribution from SC GAP analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Reclassified habitat values acc...
Example <ul><li>Eastern Towhee </li></ul><ul><li>Closed canopy evergreen forest/ Woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Dry deci...
<ul><li>Reclassified Distributions of Focal Species </li></ul>
 
Habitat Reduction Model Habitat Reduction =  Development Pressure* Index of Decline____ % of Range Unprotected
Calculating Development Pressure <ul><li>We looked at ∆ in housing units (US Census Bureau) </li></ul><ul><li>~15% increas...
Development Pressure Allen, J., and K. Lu. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region o...
Habitat Reduction Model Habitat Decline=  Development Pressure* Index of Decline___ % of Range Unprotected  = 15% across o...
Index of Decline (ID) 100 % 80 % 40 % 50 %
Percentage of Range Unprotected
Model Projections Development  Pressure Percentage of Range Unprotected Index of Decline  Species Decline (%)  2010 2020 2...
Visualizing Population Reductions <ul><li>Converted habitat distribution rasters into shapefiles </li></ul><ul><li>Generat...
Swainson’s Warbler Distribution <ul><li>2000 Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>2030 Projection </li></ul>
Shovelnose Salamander Distribution <ul><li>2000 Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>2030 Projection </li></ul>
Threat Analysis Model <ul><li>Threat Index =  </li></ul><ul><li>Growth Rate of Housing Units * Habitat Suitability Index o...
 
Conclusions <ul><li>Both models indicate land development will have detrimental long-term effects on selected species </li...
Management Implications <ul><li>Species with similar ‘% of Range Unprotected’ and ‘Index of Decline' values may serve as s...
Future Research <ul><li>Ground truth data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Verify  predicted species distributions </li></ul></ul><ul...
Questions?
. Housing Units 2000 Housing Units 2010 Housing Units 2020 Housing Units 2030
Objectives <ul><li>To compare how future development pressure may affect the distributions of birds and amphibians in Sout...
Model #1- Population Reduction Model Population Decline=  Development Pressure* Index of Decline____ % of Range Protected
 
Development Pressure Allen, J., and K. Lu. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region o...
Changes in LULC  (USGS 1992-2001)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Emerging Issues Presentation Housing Development In Upstate

179

Published on

Courter, J. R., Surasinghe, T. D., Baldwin, R. F. And Johnson, R. J. (2010). The Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians in Upstate South Carolina. Immerging issues along urban rural interfaces, Atlanta, GA.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
179
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is a collaboration with Thilina Surasinghe
  • THESE PROJECTIONS MADE BY STROM THURMOND FOLKS! From 1990 through 2000 the amount of developed land in an eight-county region of Upstate South Carolina grew from 222,745 acres to 576,336 acres. Under current practices and policies the amount of developed land is anticipated to grow to 1,523,667 acres by the year 2030. Where that growth takes place can have serious impacts and can affect the character of the region. The Upstate contains an abundance of natural, environmental, and cultural resources that could be at risk from unmanaged growth.
  • The growth model was developed for the eight counties of the Upstate that make up the Saluda River-Reedy River Watershed: Greenville, Spartanburg, Pickens, Anderson, Laurens, Newberry, Abbeville, and Greenwood. This large area contains a large variety of landscapes and features, including mountains in the northern portions of Pickens and Greenville Counties, a chain of large lakes forming the western border of Pickens, Anderson, and Abbeville Counties, several river systems traversing the region from the northwest toward the southeast, and the two major cities of Greenville and Spartanburg. The region is crossed by several Interstate highways (I-85, I-26, I-385), and just beyond the study area lie the major metropolitan areas of Charlotte, NC to the northeast and Atlanta, GA to the southwest. Figure 1 shows a map of the study area.
  • Our objectives were DIFFERENT than strom thurmonds… we wanted to study effects on animal life!!! Discuss importance of ‘surrogacy’ or ‘umbrella’ species The habitat reduction model takes a species-specific approach and considers distinct responses of selected species to human disturbances, whereas the threat analysis takes a habitat-oriented approach to project the extent of current threat to selected species.
  • Different than Strom Thurmond, we included Oconee- area of high conservation importance Strom Thurmond included Saluda River- Reedy River Watershed….
  • Each group with a broad and narrowly distributed species Shovelnosed- S2 - Imperiled state-wide because of rarity or factor(s) making it vulnerable
  • http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/data.html
  • Explain how this is a GAP- ours was a little different, we used this info but added predictors of development pressure and species ability to respond to development pressure- WE BASICALLY MADE THE SECOND LEVEL BETTER....
  • For each species in SC, a gap analysis has been conducted and is available at SC home page...
  • Emphasize this is where birds where PRESENT!!!
  • Eastern Towhee Closed canopy evergreen forest/ Woodland- 0.50 Dry deciduous forest/Woodland- 0.50 Dry mixed forest/Woodland- 0.50 Dry scrub/Shrub thicket- 1.00 Mesic deciduous forest/Woodland- 0.50 Mesic mixed forest/Woodland- 0.50 Open canopy/Recently cleared forest- 0.75 Pine woodland- 0.50 Urban residential- 0.25 We scrub/Shrub Thicket- 1.00
  • Dry scrub/Shrub thicket- 1.00 Wet scrub/Shrub Thicket- 1.00 Open canopy/Recently cleared forest- 0.75 Urban residential- 0.25
  • ∆ ‘ Housing units’ from US Census Bureau (2000-2008)+ ∆ LULC from USGS (1992-2001)
  • TRIAL and ERROR section!! Calculated change in housing units uses 2000-2008 as a guideline… TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SECOND HOMES....
  • They used population #s… possibly omit...
  • Constant value Development pressure (∆ ‘Housing units’ + ∆ LULC) Similar and different than Strom Thurmond Model ∆ ‘ Housing units’ from US Census Bureau (2000-2008)+ ∆ LULC from USGS (1992-2001)
  • “ Expert” values based on literature… VALUES DIFFERENT FOR EACH SPECIES….given human modified disturbance, what percent of species in that area will disappear…. Index of decline- given development, what is likelihood that a species will be negatively affected
  • Source- SC DNR Clearinghouse….
  • LSI- percent area UNPROTECTED!!! DATA PRESENTED OVER 3 – 10yr. Time steps….. Probably housing units would hit an asymptote at some point- in paper, discuss as limitation to our model...
  • ANYONE KNOW A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS???
  • Took into consideration different county growth rates, the fact that different agencies protect areas differently…
  • The habitat reduction model takes a species-specific approach and considers distinct responses of selected species to human disturbances, whereas the threat analysis takes a habitat-oriented approach to project the extent of current threat to selected species. Towhees show least decline- life history most flexible to disturbance Shovel-nosed salamander benefits from having a greater % of its range protected
  • Conservation value= potential and threat combination Eastern Oconee, Greenville, and Spartanburg Broad distribution of certain species does not guarantee resistance to development!
  • finer scale- we used county level- but we could use city-level, census block level, etc.
  • Possibly omit threat analyses, population table slide, even distribution rasters?
  • Very difficult to calculate by census block… took really long time to run models, no information of growth rate per census block…
  • Our objectives were DIFFERENT than strom thurmonds… we wanted to study effects on animal life!!! Discuss importance of ‘surrogacy’ or ‘umbrella’ species
  • ∆ ‘ Housing units’ from US Census Bureau (2000-2008)+ ∆ LULC from USGS (1992-2001)
  • County Level Projection…
  • They used population #s… possibly omit...
  • USGS layers that we reclassified…. Urban increase, forest decrease!!
  • Emerging Issues Presentation Housing Development In Upstate

    1. 1. The Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians in Upstate South Carolina JR Courter, TD Surasinghe, RF Baldwin, RJ Johnson Department of Forestry and Natural Resources Clemson University
    2. 2. Upstate South Carolina <ul><li>Between 1990 and 2000, developed land grew from 222,745 acres to 576,336 acres </li></ul><ul><li>Appx. 1.5 millions acres expected to be developed by 2030 (Strom Thurmond Institute) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Saluda-Reedy Watershed Images from: SC DHEC 2010
    4. 4. Objectives <ul><li>To compare how future development pressure may affect the distributions of birds and amphibians in South Carolina </li></ul><ul><li>To generate (1) a habitat reduction model and (2) a threat analysis model to help identify what species or areas to target for conservation action </li></ul><ul><li>To determine whether certain species (or certain groups of species) could be used to predict declines in other species </li></ul>
    5. 5. Study Site
    6. 6. Focal Species <ul><li>Birds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eastern Towhee (common) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Swainson’s Warbler (species of concern) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Amphibians </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Upland Chorus Frog (common) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shovel-nosed Salamander (species of concern) </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Eastern Towhee <ul><li>Common, year-round resident in SC </li></ul><ul><li>Prefers thickets and edges </li></ul><ul><li>SC may house important “source” populations for surrounding states </li></ul>
    8. 8. Swainson’s Warbler <ul><li>Neotropical migrant </li></ul><ul><li>Nests in shrubby undergrowth along riparian corridors </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow distribution, species of concern in South Carolina </li></ul>
    9. 9. Upland Chorus Frog <ul><li>Primarily a forest species </li></ul><ul><li>Inhabits floodplains and upland woods </li></ul><ul><li>Common in South Carolina and Eastern U.S. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Shovelnose Salamander <ul><li>Primarily aquatic </li></ul><ul><li>Spends most time in cool upland streams, hides under rocks </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Species of concern in South Carolina </li></ul>
    11. 11. GIS applications <ul><li>Gap analysis- uses vegetation types to predict species distributions and compares this information to protection levels to identify possible “gaps” in the protection of biodiversity </li></ul><ul><li>Threat analysis- builds upon a gap analysis, adds variables, and quantifies each variable based on its conservation benefit to focal species </li></ul>http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/data.html
    12. 12. Scott, J.M. et al. 1993. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs, No.123.
    13. 13. Eastern Towhee- SC Distribution SC Gap Analysis (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/data.html)
    14. 14. Distribution Maps <ul><li>Used species distribution from SC GAP analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Reclassified habitat values according to suitability estimates based on published literature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Very High = 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High = 0.75 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moderate = 0.50 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low = 0.25 </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Example <ul><li>Eastern Towhee </li></ul><ul><li>Closed canopy evergreen forest/ Woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Dry deciduous forest/Woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Dry mixed forest/Woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Dry scrub/Shrub thicket- 1.00 </li></ul><ul><li>Mesic deciduous forest/Woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Mesic mixed forest/Woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Open canopy/Recently cleared forest- 0.75 </li></ul><ul><li>Pine woodland- 0.50 </li></ul><ul><li>Urban residential- 0.25 </li></ul><ul><li>Wet scrub/Shrub Thicket- 1.00 </li></ul>
    16. 16. <ul><li>Reclassified Distributions of Focal Species </li></ul>
    17. 18. Habitat Reduction Model Habitat Reduction = Development Pressure* Index of Decline____ % of Range Unprotected
    18. 19. Calculating Development Pressure <ul><li>We looked at ∆ in housing units (US Census Bureau) </li></ul><ul><li>~15% increase in housing units/10yrs. </li></ul>
    19. 20. Development Pressure Allen, J., and K. Lu. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conservation Ecology 8 :2. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art13. Accessed January 20 , 2010.
    20. 21. Habitat Reduction Model Habitat Decline= Development Pressure* Index of Decline___ % of Range Unprotected = 15% across our study site
    21. 22. Index of Decline (ID) 100 % 80 % 40 % 50 %
    22. 23. Percentage of Range Unprotected
    23. 24. Model Projections Development Pressure Percentage of Range Unprotected Index of Decline Species Decline (%) 2010 2020 2030 Eastern Towhee 15 0.88 0.4 5.28 10.56 15.84 Swainson’s Warbler 15 0.835 0.8 10.02 20.04 30.06 Upland Chorus Frog 15 0.88 0.5 6.6 13.2 19.8 Shovelnose Salamander 15 0.4 1 6 12 18
    24. 25. Visualizing Population Reductions <ul><li>Converted habitat distribution rasters into shapefiles </li></ul><ul><li>Generated internal buffers based on projected declines (%) in species distributions </li></ul><ul><li>Converted shapefiles back into rasters </li></ul>
    25. 26. Swainson’s Warbler Distribution <ul><li>2000 Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>2030 Projection </li></ul>
    26. 27. Shovelnose Salamander Distribution <ul><li>2000 Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>2030 Projection </li></ul>
    27. 28. Threat Analysis Model <ul><li>Threat Index = </li></ul><ul><li>Growth Rate of Housing Units * Habitat Suitability Index of Species </li></ul><ul><li>Protection Status </li></ul><ul><li>Adapted from Baldwin and deMaynadier (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Growth rate of housing units was county specific </li></ul><ul><li>Habitat Suitability Index (Very High = 1  Low = 0.25) </li></ul><ul><li>Protection Status (Federal = 5, State = 4, Private = 3, Unknown =2, Unprotected = 1) </li></ul>
    28. 30. Conclusions <ul><li>Both models indicate land development will have detrimental long-term effects on selected species </li></ul><ul><li>All species projected to show decline in 2030 based on development projections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Towhees show least decline, Swainson’s the greatest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Upland chorus frog similar response to shovelnose, for different reasons </li></ul></ul>
    29. 31. Management Implications <ul><li>Species with similar ‘% of Range Unprotected’ and ‘Index of Decline' values may serve as surrogate species for one another </li></ul><ul><li>The broad distribution of common species does not guarantee resistance to development </li></ul><ul><li>Protecting and managing critical habitat is the best way to halt species declines </li></ul><ul><li>These methods may be used to identify areas of high conservation importance </li></ul>
    30. 32. Future Research <ul><li>Ground truth data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Verify predicted species distributions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare 2010 projections with field observations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Apply finer scale growth projections and better quantify responses of species to LULC change </li></ul><ul><li>Compare our growth models with other models based on data collected in 2010 census </li></ul>
    31. 33. Questions?
    32. 34. . Housing Units 2000 Housing Units 2010 Housing Units 2020 Housing Units 2030
    33. 35. Objectives <ul><li>To compare how future development pressure may affect the distributions of birds and amphibians in South Carolina </li></ul><ul><li>To generate a (1) population reduction model and a (2) threat analysis model to help identify what species and what areas to target for conservation action </li></ul><ul><li>To determine whether certain species (or certain groups of species) could be used to predict declines in other species </li></ul>
    34. 36. Model #1- Population Reduction Model Population Decline= Development Pressure* Index of Decline____ % of Range Protected
    35. 38. Development Pressure Allen, J., and K. Lu. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conservation Ecology 8 :2. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art13. Accessed January 20 , 2010.
    36. 39. Changes in LULC (USGS 1992-2001)

    ×