Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Balancing Tradeoffs: Reconciling multiple environmental goals in an agricultural Amazonia

ESA 2014 conference presentation

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Balancing Tradeoffs: Reconciling multiple environmental goals in an agricultural Amazonia

  1. 1. Balancing tradeoffs: Reconciling multiple environmental goals in an agricultural Amazonia ESA 2014 12 August 2014 Christine S. O’Connell, Kimberly M. Carlson, Santiago Cuadra, Kenneth J. Feeley, Paul C. West, Stephen Polasky, Jonathan A. Foley
  2. 2. There is no one Amazon Ecology 1
  3. 3. Human use Is rapid And changing 2
  4. 4. Land use impacts vary both across space and among the ecosystem services being considered
  5. 5. Q Can explicit consideration of tradeoffs help achieve multiple objectives from land use?
  6. 6. We combined data from remote sensing, model output, and geostatistical datasets to assess spatial variation in services
  7. 7. We combined data from remote sensing, model output, and geostatistical datasets to assess spatial variation in services •  Changes in carbon (C) stocks •  Energy balance regulation •  Habitat quality
  8. 8. We combined data from remote sensing, model output, and geostatistical datasets to assess spatial variation in services •  Changes in carbon (C) stocks •  Energy balance regulation •  Habitat quality And compared those impacts to agricultural gains from expansion
  9. 9. C stock reductions relate to precipitation, landscape degradation, and soils Net aboveground biomass and mineral soil C lost after land use change
  10. 10. Local atmospheric drying after land use change is greater in the strongly seasonal east Reduction in exported moisture per day (via evapotranspiration)
  11. 11. …and local warming is higher in the same area Increase in local atmospheric temperature (annual average)
  12. 12. Plants, birds and mammals all have the highest relative species diversity in the Andes Amazon Number of species ranges represented in each grid cell
  13. 13. Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained / change in ecosystem property
  14. 14. Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained / change in ecosystem property
  15. 15. Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained / change in ecosystem property
  16. 16. Ecosystem services: potential cobenefits
  17. 17. Ecosystem services: potential cobenefits
  18. 18. Ecosystem services: potential cobenefits
  19. 19. The location of future agricultural expansion will largely dictate the impacts of land use on ecosystem services.
  20. 20. Doubling Amazonia's agricultural lands at least harm to the environment Carbon storage priority level Carbon storage priority level Carbon storage priority level TgCEmitted SpeciesRangesAffected RegionalClimateIndex We ran an algorithm that expands agriculture at the least combined “harm,” while changing the priority between C, energy balance and habitat
  21. 21. Doubling Amazonia's agricultural lands at least harm to the environment Carbon storage priority level Carbon storage priority level Carbon storage priority level TgCEmitted SpeciesRangesAffected RegionalClimateIndex We ran an algorithm that expands agriculture at the least combined “harm,” while changing the priority between C, energy balance and habitat
  22. 22. Carbon storage priority changes Habitat quality priority changes Regional climate priority changes Tg C Effects Habitat Effects Reg. Clim. Effects
  23. 23. Explicit strategizing is critical in large, dynamic ecosystems with potential conflicts between goals. A “portfolio” land conservation strategy that strategically targets different regions of Amazonia to achieve different environmental outcomes could be a way forward.
  24. 24. Muito Obrigada Photo credits Flickr CC Users CIFOR Billtacular Jacsonquerubin flinner! Carine06 LeoFFreitas terrydu ggallice Icelight MODIS images via NASA Thanks to The Foley, Polasky, Powers and Hobbie lab groups Supporting agencies, institutions and collaborators below Christine S. O’Connell, coconn@umn.edu, UMN EEB/IonE
  25. 25. •  V is the synthetic value placed on a parcel of land remaining in natural vegetation •  wk is the weight, or human preference, given to each ecosystem property •  Dkij is the delivery of the ecosystem property •  k is an index for each ecosystem property being incorporated into V, and ij points to the grid cell •  The relative weight between those factors was varied across each simulation systematically in 5% increments (w1=1.0, 0, 0, w2=0.95, 0.5, 0, …) for an n=441
  26. 26. We are limited by ideas, not by tools - Peter Groffman

×