“the” conceptual - uf/ifas oci · in a theater-style setting each slide highlighted one model...

S O U T H F L O R I D A W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T D I S T R I C T

“The” Conceptual Ecological Model for Everglades Tree Islands


4 t h N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n E c o s y s t e m R e s t o r a t i o n A u g u s t 1 - 5 , 2 0 1 1

“The” Conceptual

Ecological Model for

Everglades Tree Islands

Fred H. Sklar, PhDDirectorWetland Watershed Sciences,

Applied Sciences Bureau, Water Resources Division

To contact me after my presentation, text S36 to INTRO (46876)



“The” Conceptual Ecological Model

for Everglades Tree Islands

2

Fred H. Sklar,

[email protected]

Co-authors:

Lorraine Heisler2, Agnes McLean3, Carlos Coronado-Molina1, Colin

Saunders1, Gregory Kiker4 and Pamela Fletcher5

1South Florida Water Management District, Palm Beach, FL, USA 2US Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach FL, USA 3Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks, Homestead, FL, USA4University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA5National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, FL, USA

To contact me after my presentation, text S36 to INTRO (46876)



Why do we care about

Tree Islands?

3

Biodiversity hotspots

Rookery habitat

Wildlife refuge during high water

Breeding and nesting ground for reptiles,

amphibians, mammals and birds

Archaeological resource

Public aesthetic and recreational value

Physiographic function:

Nutrient sink

Driver of oligotrophy


4

Water

Flow

High LowNutrient Gradient

Nutrients and Organic

Matter Flow Downstream

Tree Island Physiographic Function:

Discovery and Restoration move hand-in-hand

Focused redistribution of

nutrients maintains

Everglades oligotrophy

Net autotrophy creates a

nutrient sink


“The” Conceptual Ecological Model for Everglades Tree Islands 5

Loxahatchee National

Wildlife Refuge

The Tree Island

Landscape is

Diverse



The Tree Island

Landscape is

Diverse

Islands dispersed across

a broad landscape in

WCA-3A



The Tree Island

Landscape is

Diverse

Coastal Hammocks in

Everglades National Park


8

1995

1995 Tree Islands1940 Tree Islands

The Tree Island Landscape is Disappearing!



Why develop a

Conceptual Model?

9

Provides an understanding of the

state of knowledge

Focuses the socio-economic and

scientific debates

Creates a forum for stakeholder

participation

Has the potential for consensus building

Prioritizes research dollars

Facilitates adaptive management


Tree Island Conceptual Model

Workshop Phase 1

10

2007 Wading Bird Nests

2002 Tree Island Conceptual

Model

(December 3-5, 2007)


11

Draft Tree Island CEM version 3.2

July 15, 2008

Coronado, Heisler, Saunders, Sklar

A1: Veg. type, diversity,

Biomass, habitat function

A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;

relative elev. change)

A3: Spatial extent &

distribution

D2: CompartmentalizationD1: Water Management D3: Climate Change & RSLR

S3: exotics S6: Wind; stormsS4: SalinityS2: Nutrients

A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in tree

island & adjacent

marsh

R&S

19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

2927

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlife

use

911 810

B: Oxidation

& fire

frequency

S5: hydrologyS1: Human Uses

21

Tree Island Conceptual Model Workshop Phase 2.


12

Draft Tree Island CEM version 3.2

July 15, 2008

Coronado, Heisler, Saunders, Sklar



A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;



distribution



A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in tree

island & adjacent

marsh

R&S

19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

2927

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlife

use

911 810

B: Oxidation

& fire

frequency


21


13

Rating Rules – 3 votes for each linkage

Importance: (Line Thickness)

High – thick line

Med – medium line

Low – thin line

Understanding: (Line Color)

High – Green line

Med – Blue line

Low – Red line

Do you think the linkage

is important?

Do we have an

understanding of the

linkage?

Predictability: (Line Type)

High – Solid line

Med – Dashed line

Low – Dotted line

Can we predict the effects of

this linkage? (Is there a logic

or mathematical expression that

can predict the interactions as a

function of the driver?)


14

Voting Procedures

Used a portable TurningPoint ® audience polling system in a theater-style setting

Each slide highlighted one model relationship/linkage

Limited clarifying questions/comments to 5 minutes• Voted on the importance, understanding and the predictability

of this relationship

• Options include: High, Medium, Low, Postpone, Abstain

• “Postpone” vote if more time is needed to discuss the question Agree to postpone for < 25% vote

• “Abstain” only if you cannot place any other vote

Confidentiality of individual votes was maintained

Poll did not record who had which voting unit


15

My area of interest / expertise is…

Wild

life e

colo

gy

Pla

nt ecolo

gy

Landsc

ape ecolo

gy

Ecosyst

em e

cology

Hydro

logy

/ physic

al...

Oth

er

11%

42%

11%

5%

21%

11%

1. Wildlife ecology

2. Plant ecology

3. Landscape ecology

4. Ecosystem ecology

5. Hydrology / physical sciences

6. Other

Results from 31 workshop

participants considered

Everglades experts


16

Experience in Tree Island Research

Les

s th

an 1

yea

r

1 to

5 y

ears

5 to

10

year

s

Ove

r 10

year

s

5%

37%37%

21%1. Less than 1 year

2. 1 to 5 years

3. 5 to 10 years

4. Over 10 years

Results from 31 workshop

participants considered

Everglades experts


17

D: Altered Vegetation Structure

(island and local marsh)

G: Wildlife use

2


18



G: Wildlife use

2


19



G: Wildlife use

2


20



A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;



distribution


A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and

quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local

marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in

tree island &

adjacent marsh19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

29*27

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlif

e use

9*11 810*

B:

Oxidation

& fire

frequency


21

•Further discussion

required

Postponed

Importance:

High

Med

Low

Understanding:

High

Med

Low

Predictability:

High

Med

Low

“Blue” Links: 1) No low importance links;

2) One medium importance link;

3) All medium understood links are

unpredictable.

Recommendation:

Develop modeling tools for these links.


21



A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;



distribution


A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and

quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local

marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in

tree island &

adjacent marsh

R&S

19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

29*27

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlif

e use

9*11 810*

B:

Oxidation

& fire

frequency


21


required

Postponed

Importance:

High

Med

Low

Understanding:

High

Med

Low

Predictability:

High

Med

Low

“Red” Links: 1)8 out of 30 links are poorly understood;

2)3 out of the 8 were considered important.

Recommendation: Focus research on

island interactions with adjacent marsh and

the effects of vegetation structure on soil

dynamics.


22



A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;



distribution


A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and

quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local

marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in

tree island &

adjacent marsh19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

29*

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlif

e use

9*11 810*

B:

Oxidation

& fire

frequency


21


required

Postponed

Importance:

High

Med

Low

Understanding:

High

Med

Low

Predictability:

High

Med

Low

“Green” Links: 1) Only 3 out of 30 links well understood;

2) Luckily, they are also highly predictable

and very important.

Recommendation:

Keep up the good work!

27


23



A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;



distribution


A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and

quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local

marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in

tree island &

adjacent marsh19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

29*

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlif

e use

9*11 810*

B:

Oxidation

& fire

frequency


21


required

Postponed

Importance:

High

Med

Low

Understanding:

High

Med

Low

Predictability:

High

Med

Low

“Gold” Links: 1) Decisions on 4 out of 30 links had

to be postponed;

2) In most cases, this was due to concern

that the linkage was too simple and did not

capture important internal interactions.

27

Recommendation: Refine the conceptual model.



Problems with

Participatory Modeling

24

Most scientists may have issues with this type of simplification,

especially if it looks like a life-long body of work is being trivialized

Solution:

Links to socio-economic drivers must be made explicit

Maximize scientist interactions during the Phase 2 modeling

Remember that it is “A” model, not “The” model

Most managers will glaze over at the sight of another “spaghetti”

diagram

Solution:

Describe the model step-by-step, as an incremental thought experiment

Identify which are the most important linkages to resource management and

restoration options

Never show the completed model until all the developmental steps are

described. (Imagine seeing the next slide first)


25



A2: Soil TP

A4: Accretion rate;

C capture;



distribution



A: Soil Dynamics

multiple factors

including local

geology

E:

Elevation

& Area

C: Altered

soil depth

and

quality

D: Altered

Vegetation

Structure

(island and

local

marsh)

F: Vegetation

dynamics in

tree island &

adjacent marsh

R&S

19

20

1517 18 116 14

28

29*27

22

23

24

4

76

25

30

13

2

3

12

5

26

G:

Wildlif

e use

9*11 810*

B:

Oxidation

& fire

frequency


21


required

Postponed

Importance:

High

Med

Low

Understanding:

High

Med

Low

Predictability:

High

Med

Low

Tree Island Conceptual Model Workshop Phase III


Advantages of

Participatory Modeling

Fred Sklar, PhDTo contact me after my presentation, text S36 to INTRO (46876)

26

By providing a risk-free forum for scientific and stakeholder participation, audience polling combined with conceptual models can create:

1) A better understanding of the state of knowledge,

2) A process for focusing the scientific uncertainties and

prioritizing research dollars; and

3) A strategy for an adaptive management program

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” – Winston Churchill

Questions?

“the” conceptual - uf/ifas oci · in a theater-style setting each slide highlighted one model...

Documents