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
Transcript
1. Balancing tradeoffs: Reconciling multiple environmental
goals in an agricultural Amazonia ESA 201412 August 2014 Christine
S. OConnell, Kimberly M. Carlson, Santiago Cuadra, Kenneth J.
Feeley, Paul C. West, Stephen Polasky, Jonathan A. Foley
2. There is no one Amazon Ecology 1
3. Human use Is rapid And changing 2
4. Land use impacts vary both across space and among the
ecosystem services being considered
5. Q Can explicit consideration of tradeoffs help achieve
multiple objectives from land use?
6. We combined data from remote sensing, model output, and
geostatistical datasets to assess spatial variation in
services
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. 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. C stock reductions relate to precipitation, landscape
degradation, and soils Net aboveground biomass and mineral soil C
lost after land use change
10. Local atmospheric drying after land use change is greater
in the strongly seasonal east Reduction in exported moisture per
day (via evapotranspiration)
11. and local warming is higher in the same area Increase in
local atmospheric temperature (annual average)
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. Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained /
change in ecosystem property
14. Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained /
change in ecosystem property
15. Tradeoffs consider both gains and losses Calories gained /
change in ecosystem property
16. Ecosystem services: potential cobenefits
17. Ecosystem services: potential cobenefits
18. Ecosystem services: potential cobenefits
19. The location of future agricultural expansion will largely
dictate the impacts of land use on ecosystem services.
20. Doubling Amazonia's agricultural lands at least harm to the
environmentCarbon storage priority levelCarbon storage priority
levelCarbon storage priority
levelTgCEmittedSpeciesRangesAffectedRegionalClimateIndex We ran an
algorithm that expands agriculture at the least combined harm,
while changing the priority between C, energy balance and
habitat
21. Doubling Amazonia's agricultural lands at least harm to the
environmentCarbon storage priority levelCarbon storage priority
levelCarbon storage priority
levelTgCEmittedSpeciesRangesAffectedRegionalClimateIndex We ran an
algorithm that expands agriculture at the least combined harm,
while changing the priority between C, energy balance and
habitat
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. 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 groupsSupporting agencies,
institutions and collaborators belowChristine S. OConnell,
[email protected], UMN EEB/IonE
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. We are limited by ideas, not by tools - Peter Groffman