![Upstate South Carolina ,[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (18)
Similaire à Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians
Similaire à Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians (20)
Plus de tdilan
Plus de tdilan (10)
Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians
- 1. The Impacts of Housing Development on Birds and Amphibians in Upstate South Carolina JR Courter, TD Surasinghe, RF Baldwin, RJ Johnson Department of Forestry and Natural Resources Clemson University
- 3. Saluda-Reedy Watershed Images from: SC DHEC 2010
- 5. Study Site
- 12. Scott, J.M. et al. 1993. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs, No.123.
- 13. Eastern Towhee- SC Distribution SC Gap Analysis (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/data.html)
- 18. Habitat Reduction Model Habitat Reduction = Development Pressure* Index of Decline____ % of Range Unprotected
- 20. Development Pressure Allen, J., and K. Lu. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conservation Ecology 8 :2. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art13. Accessed January 20 , 2010.
- 21. Habitat Reduction Model Habitat Decline= Development Pressure* Index of Decline___ % of Range Unprotected = 15% across our study site
- 22. Index of Decline (ID) 100 % 80 % 40 % 50 %
- 23. Percentage of Range Unprotected
- 24. Model Projections Development Pressure Percentage of Range Unprotected Index of Decline Species Decline (%) 2010 2020 2030 Eastern Towhee 15 0.88 0.4 5.28 10.56 15.84 Swainson’s Warbler 15 0.835 0.8 10.02 20.04 30.06 Upland Chorus Frog 15 0.88 0.5 6.6 13.2 19.8 Shovelnose Salamander 15 0.4 1 6 12 18
- 33. Questions?
- 34. . Housing Units 2000 Housing Units 2010 Housing Units 2020 Housing Units 2030
- 36. Model #1- Population Reduction Model Population Decline= Development Pressure* Index of Decline____ % of Range Protected
- 38. Development Pressure Allen, J., and K. Lu. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conservation Ecology 8 :2. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art13. Accessed January 20 , 2010.
- 39. Changes in LULC (USGS 1992-2001)
Notes de l'éditeur
- This is a collaboration with Thilina Surasinghe
- THESE PROJECTIONS MADE BY STROM THURMOND FOLKS! From 1990 through 2000 the amount of developed land in an eight-county region of Upstate South Carolina grew from 222,745 acres to 576,336 acres. Under current practices and policies the amount of developed land is anticipated to grow to 1,523,667 acres by the year 2030. Where that growth takes place can have serious impacts and can affect the character of the region. The Upstate contains an abundance of natural, environmental, and cultural resources that could be at risk from unmanaged growth.
- The growth model was developed for the eight counties of the Upstate that make up the Saluda River-Reedy River Watershed: Greenville, Spartanburg, Pickens, Anderson, Laurens, Newberry, Abbeville, and Greenwood. This large area contains a large variety of landscapes and features, including mountains in the northern portions of Pickens and Greenville Counties, a chain of large lakes forming the western border of Pickens, Anderson, and Abbeville Counties, several river systems traversing the region from the northwest toward the southeast, and the two major cities of Greenville and Spartanburg. The region is crossed by several Interstate highways (I-85, I-26, I-385), and just beyond the study area lie the major metropolitan areas of Charlotte, NC to the northeast and Atlanta, GA to the southwest. Figure 1 shows a map of the study area.
- Our objectives were DIFFERENT than strom thurmonds… we wanted to study effects on animal life!!! Discuss importance of ‘surrogacy’ or ‘umbrella’ species The habitat reduction model takes a species-specific approach and considers distinct responses of selected species to human disturbances, whereas the threat analysis takes a habitat-oriented approach to project the extent of current threat to selected species.
- Different than Strom Thurmond, we included Oconee- area of high conservation importance Strom Thurmond included Saluda River- Reedy River Watershed….
- Each group with a broad and narrowly distributed species Shovelnosed- S2 - Imperiled state-wide because of rarity or factor(s) making it vulnerable
- http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/data.html
- Explain how this is a GAP- ours was a little different, we used this info but added predictors of development pressure and species ability to respond to development pressure- WE BASICALLY MADE THE SECOND LEVEL BETTER....
- For each species in SC, a gap analysis has been conducted and is available at SC home page...
- Emphasize this is where birds where PRESENT!!!
- Eastern Towhee Closed canopy evergreen forest/ Woodland- 0.50 Dry deciduous forest/Woodland- 0.50 Dry mixed forest/Woodland- 0.50 Dry scrub/Shrub thicket- 1.00 Mesic deciduous forest/Woodland- 0.50 Mesic mixed forest/Woodland- 0.50 Open canopy/Recently cleared forest- 0.75 Pine woodland- 0.50 Urban residential- 0.25 We scrub/Shrub Thicket- 1.00
- Dry scrub/Shrub thicket- 1.00 Wet scrub/Shrub Thicket- 1.00 Open canopy/Recently cleared forest- 0.75 Urban residential- 0.25
- ∆ ‘ Housing units’ from US Census Bureau (2000-2008)+ ∆ LULC from USGS (1992-2001)
- TRIAL and ERROR section!! Calculated change in housing units uses 2000-2008 as a guideline… TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SECOND HOMES....
- They used population #s… possibly omit...
- Constant value Development pressure (∆ ‘Housing units’ + ∆ LULC) Similar and different than Strom Thurmond Model ∆ ‘ Housing units’ from US Census Bureau (2000-2008)+ ∆ LULC from USGS (1992-2001)
- “ Expert” values based on literature… VALUES DIFFERENT FOR EACH SPECIES….given human modified disturbance, what percent of species in that area will disappear…. Index of decline- given development, what is likelihood that a species will be negatively affected
- Source- SC DNR Clearinghouse….
- LSI- percent area UNPROTECTED!!! DATA PRESENTED OVER 3 – 10yr. Time steps….. Probably housing units would hit an asymptote at some point- in paper, discuss as limitation to our model...
- ANYONE KNOW A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS???
- Took into consideration different county growth rates, the fact that different agencies protect areas differently…
- The habitat reduction model takes a species-specific approach and considers distinct responses of selected species to human disturbances, whereas the threat analysis takes a habitat-oriented approach to project the extent of current threat to selected species. Towhees show least decline- life history most flexible to disturbance Shovel-nosed salamander benefits from having a greater % of its range protected
- Conservation value= potential and threat combination Eastern Oconee, Greenville, and Spartanburg Broad distribution of certain species does not guarantee resistance to development!
- finer scale- we used county level- but we could use city-level, census block level, etc.
- Possibly omit threat analyses, population table slide, even distribution rasters?
- Very difficult to calculate by census block… took really long time to run models, no information of growth rate per census block…
- Our objectives were DIFFERENT than strom thurmonds… we wanted to study effects on animal life!!! Discuss importance of ‘surrogacy’ or ‘umbrella’ species
- ∆ ‘ Housing units’ from US Census Bureau (2000-2008)+ ∆ LULC from USGS (1992-2001)
- County Level Projection…
- They used population #s… possibly omit...
- USGS layers that we reclassified…. Urban increase, forest decrease!!