land use change after the collapse of the soviet...
TRANSCRIPT
Land use change after the collapse of the Soviet Union
and its effects on protected areas and large mammal populations Eugenia V. Bragina1,2, A. Sieber3, T. Kuemmerle3, P. Potapov4, S. Turubanova4, A. Tyukavina4, M. Hansen4, M. Baumann1,
A.M. Pidgeon1, K.J. Wendland5, A.V. Prishchepov6, A.R. Ives7, N. Keuler8, L.M. Baskin9, V.C. Radeloff1
Protected area effectiveness
How effective were Russian protected areas during economic downturns given lack
of funding and low enforcement levels?
Goal: Evaluation of the effectiveness of Russian protected areas before and after
collapse of the socialism through changes in forest cover
Forest disturbance in European Russia
Logging in boreal and temperate forests is a major source of carbon emissions, but
region-wide forest disturbance information is lacking.
Goal: Map region-wide Forest cover and disturbance with an automatic Landsat
data processing, compositing and classification algorithm
• Location: Oksky and Mordovsky strictly protected state
nature reserves
• Data: Landsat footprints 174-175-176/22; 1985-2010
• Support Vector Machine classifications
• Trajectory analysis of forest disturbance index (DI)
(Healey et al. 2005)
disturbance index < 2 forest (undisturbed across
time)
disturbance index ≥ specific threshold non-forest
(forest disturbance)
Annual forest disturbance rates (
% of 1984 forest)
Stable forest Forest disturbance in
year 12
Approach Results
• About 40% of the 1988 farmland abandoned by 2010
• Forest disturbance inside Oksky 1.81%, outside
6.15%; inside Mordovsky 0.5%, outside 5.21%
• Lower forest disturbance rate in the 1990s (Sieber et
al. 2013)
Forest disturbance detection
Approach Results
• Location: Northern
European Russia
• Data: USGS archive of Landsat TM/+ETM
• Forest disturbance detection in 1990-2000
(Yaroshenko et al., 2008):
Per-image change detection using SWIR
band difference threshold and
unsupervised clustering
• Forest disturbance detection in 2000-2005
(Potapov et al., 2011):
Forest cover and change mapping using
supervised classification tree algorithm
and cloud-free image composites for
2000 and 2005
• Forest disturbance detection in 2000-2012:
Annual forest cover change mapping
using multi-temporal spectral metrics and
annual cloud-free image composites
• Logging contributes 89% of total forest cover loss
• The most populated regions had the highest rates of forest loss
• Between 1990-2000 and 2000-2005:
Annual gross forest cover loss decreased from 528
to 402 ha*1000/yr
Annual logging area decreased by 33%
Logging increased within the Central and Western parts
Annual burned forest area increased more than 50%
• Work in progress:
forest cover change
for 2000-2012 for all
of Eastern Europe
Annual gross forest cover loss
attributed to logging
Net forest cover change 2000–2005, as % of
forest cover for 2000
1990-2000
2000-2005
>1%
-1% – 1%
-2% – -1%
< -2%
Potapov et al. 2012
Tree canopy cover for 2000 Gross forest cover gain Gross forest cover loss 2000 -2012
Approach Results
• Location: Caucasus strictly protected state nature reserve
• Data: Landsat footprints 173/29-30; 1985-2010
• Support Vector Machine classification
• Four classes: forest, agriculture, grassland, and meadows
• Post-classification comparison. Forest either converted to
(1) agriculture, (2) grassland, or was (3) disturbed
Caucasus NR
• Forest disturbances inside nature reserve was 7.03%
• Forest disturbances outside nature reserve was 12.3%
Agriculture
Forest
Grassland
Other
Forest disturbance
Affiliations
1 1 Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, WI, USA
2 Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia
3 Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
4 Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, MD, USA
5 Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho, ID, USA
6 Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern
Europe, Germany
7 Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA
8 Department of Statistics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA
9 Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russia We gratefully acknowledge support by NASA’s Land Cover and Land Use Science Program
Large mammals population trends after the collapse of the Soviet Union
How do socioeconomic shocks affect wildlife? Quantitative evidence is sparse.
Goal: Examination of population trends of large mammal species in Russia before
and after the collapse of socialism
Approach Results
• Winter Track Count data: annual survey of animal tracks
since 1964 on up to 50,000 transects per year
• We analyzed wildlife population densities for all of Russia
and for each administrative regions
• Models N(t+1) = a + b*N(t) for each region
• Positive residuals indicate population increases
• Negative residuals indicate population declines
Wild boar populations in Pskov
region (left), and fitted model with
residuals for 1980s (black), ‘90s
(red) and ‘00s (green)
1980 1990 2000 2010
1.5
2.0
2.5
N(t)
1.5 2.0 2.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
N(t)
N(t+
1)
• Most large mammal populations declined very
rapidly after the collapse of socialism in 1991
• Only wolf increased after 1991
• After 2000 most species rebounded
Wildlife populations
trends in Russia relative
to 1991 populations
Contact information
Eugenia Bragina
Phone: 608-265-9219
E-mail: [email protected]
http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu
0 300 km
0 25 50 km