Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
Agreement and uncertainty among climate change impact models: A synthesis of sagebrush steppe vegetation predictions
Authors: |
|
|
---|---|---|
Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
Type: | Resource | |
Storage: | The size of this resource is 105.8 MB | |
Created: | Jun 10, 2020 at 6:18 p.m. | |
Last updated: | Feb 02, 2024 at 7:34 a.m. (Metadata update) | |
Published date: | Jun 19, 2020 at 4:51 p.m. | |
DOI: | 10.4211/hs.e6b15828d20843eab4e2babd89787f41 | |
Citation: | See how to cite this resource | |
Content types: | Geographic Feature Content Geographic Raster Content |
Sharing Status: | Published |
---|---|
Views: | 1595 |
Downloads: | 174 |
+1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
Ecologists have built numerous models to project how climate change will impact rangeland vegetation, but these projections are difficult to validate, making their utility for land management planning unclear. In the absence of direct validation, researchers can ask whether projections from different models are consistent. Here, we analyzed 42 models of climate change impacts on sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.), pinyon-juniper (Pinus L. spp. and Juniperus L. spp.), and forage production on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the United States Intermountain West. These models consistently projected the potential for pinyon-juniper declines and forage production increases. Sagebrush models consistently projected no change in most areas, and declines in southern extremes. In contrast, projected impacts on cheatgrass were weak or uncertain. In most instances, projections for high and low emissions scenarios differed only slightly.
The projected vegetation impacts have important management implications for agencies such as the BLM. Pinyon-juniper declines would reduce the need to control pinyon-juniper encroachment, and increases in forage production could benefit livestock and wildlife populations in some regions. Sagebrush conservation and restoration projects may be challenged in areas projected to experience sagebrush declines. However, projected vegetation impacts may also interact with increasing future wildfire risk in ways single-response models do not anticipate. In particular, projected increases in forage production could increase management challenges related to fire.
Included in this page are the data, code, and directions used to complete this analysis and visualize results. This includes the original images of model results used in our analysis, and the code used to process and analyze these images to produce our final results.
Subject Keywords
Coverage
Spatial
Content
Readme.txt
Included on this page are the code and data used in our analysis "Agreement and uncertainty among climate change impact models: A synthesis of sagebrush steppe vegetation predictions" The resources included in this repository are: Contents draft2_zimmer_et_al_2020.pdf - second draft of final manuscript draft2_zimmer_et_al_2020_figures.pdf - second draft of final manuscript figures draft2_zimmer_et_al_2020_supplement.pdf - second draft of supplemental figures Analysis - Zipped folder with data and code (NOTE: File paths in the code are written for use with the included R Project. To use, open the analysis.Rproject file, and open scripts through the /scripts folder.) raw_images - folder with raw images of model results incoporated in our analysis georeferenced_rasters - rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing (done in ArcMap, no script available) classified_rasters - rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing and unsupervised classification recoded_rasters - rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing, unsupervised classification, and recoding values to values indicating increases, decreases, and no change in vegetation masked_rasters - rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing, unsupervised classification, recoding values, and eliminating pixels not overlapping BLM lands or the Intermountain West count_stacks - raster stacks corresponding to counts of models projecting increases, decreases, or no change pixel-by-pixel. These stacks are made for each vegetation type, and for all emissions scenario results, low emissions results, and high emissions results renwick_supp_shp - supplemental CSV data from the renwick study, converted into shapefile results data - folder with additional data used in analysis renwick_supp.csv - CSV of supplemental results from Renwick et al 2018 used in analysis study_metadata.csv - CSV of important metadata in reference to the studies and individual models included in our analysis gis - folder of gis layers used in analysis. These include BLM land, ecoregions and states scripts - folder of R scripts/code used in analysis 1_make_shp_from_renwick_results.R - takes the data from renwick_supp.csv and makes it into shapefiles which can be analyzed like other results 2_unsupervised_classification.R - takes the georeferenced_rasters and performs an unsupervised classification to identify similar pixel groups 3_recoding_rasters.R - recodes the values in the classified_rasters to correspond to increases, decreases, or no change 4_mask_rasters.R - takes the recoded_rasters and eliminates areas not corresponding to Intermountain West BLM lands 5_make_stack_all_emissions.R 6_make_stack_low_emissions.R 7_make_stack_high_emissions.R The above three scripts process the masked all/low/high emissions scenario results for each species, resample them, then count the number of models indicating increases, decrease, or no change at each pixel. Then saves out a stack for each of these 8_plotting_rgb_count_withlegend_all_emissions.R 9_plotting_rgb_count_withlegend_low_emissions.R 10_plotting_rgb_count_withlegend_high_emissions.R The above three scripts take stacks of counts corresponding to the number of models indicating increases, decreases, and no change among all/low/high emissions scenarios. Then creates an RGB plot of those, and a legend for each species. supplement_rgb_legend.R - Makes a supplemental plot to show a simple example of where points with various values plot on the triangle RGB legned included in plots. supplement_only_renwick_pixels.R - Evaluates sagebrush projections only at pixels which correspond to the Renwick et al study. Included in supplemental material. The order of this analysis is: 0. Georeference the "raw_images". This was completed in ArcMap, no script is available. ---- Steps 1-10 are completed in R. Open the analysis.Rproject file and open the following scripts from the /scripts folder. --- 1. One set of results came from a csv, which was converted to shapefiles for spatial analysis. This is completed by the script "1_make_shp_from_renwick_results.R" 2. Perform unsupervised classification on georeferenced_rasters to identifty similar pixel groups within images, using script "2_unsupervised_classification.R" 3. Recode the values of classified_rasters. Classification gives the pixel groups arbitrary values. Recoding the values to make them meaningful is necessary. We recoded pixels corresponding to decreases in vegetation as -1, pixels corresponding to increases as 1, pixels corresponding to no change as 0, and pixels not addressing vegetation (irrelevant background, legends, etc) as N/A. The recoding script is "3_recoding_rasters.R" 4. Mask the rasters. In this analysis, we were interested only in Intermountain West BLM lands, so pixels not overlapping BLM lands in the Intermountain West were removed by masking. The masking script is "4_mask_rasters.R" 5-7. Using the masked rasters, resample and stack rasters which all address a given vegetation/emissions scenario combination. Then count the number of pixels indicating increases, decreases, or no change in that vegetation type at every pixel. Save out the stack of pixel counts. 8-10. Make plots of RGB intensity corresponding to count of models indicating increases, decreases, and no change, using the stack of pixel counts. We analyzed all emissions scenarios together, then only low emissions scenarios, then only high. 11. Manually merge together RGB plots and legends in a program such as Inkscape (no script available).
Data Services
Additional Metadata
Name | Value |
---|---|
Expected Results | See Draft 2 of manuscript and figures in files "draft1_zimmer_et_al_2020.pdf" |
Expected Reproducibility Level | Artifacts available |
Related Resources
This resource updates and replaces a previous version | Zimmer, S., G. Grosklos, P. Adler, P. Belmont (2019). Agreement and uncertainty among climate change impact models: A synthesis of sagebrush steppe vegetation predictions, HydroShare, https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.3b420b738128411e8e1e11b38b83b5f1 |
Title | Owners | Sharing Status | My Permission |
---|---|---|---|
Climate Adaptation Science Project Work | CAS Coordinator · David Rosenberg | Public & Shareable | Open Access |
Credits
Funding Agencies
This resource was created using funding from the following sources:
Agency Name | Award Title | Award Number |
---|---|---|
The Wilderness Society | ||
National Science Foundation | Climate Adaptation Science | 1633756 |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment