GIStoration

itsnature.org

Assessing the suitability of central European landscapers for the reintroduction of Eurasian lynx 

Schadt, S. and others. 2002. Journal of Applied Ecology 39. 

The Eurasian lynx is showing signs of recovery in parts of Germany, Czech Republic, and elsewhere in Europe. But the species suffers from living in a habitat fragmented by human land uses. Current reintroduction initiatives are underway, although controversial (as usual with large carnivores). 
Continue reading ‘Assessing the suitability of central European landscapes for the reintroduction of Eurasian lynx’

Reintroducing the beaver (Castor fiber) to Scotland: a protocol for identifying and assessing suitable release sites

MacDonald, D.W., Tattersall, F.H., Rushton, S., South, A.B., Rao, S., Maitland, P., and Strachan, R.

While previous posts have looked att he reintroduction of individual species for reasons related mainly to that species, the restoration of beavers to former range is different. As keystone species, beavers have the disproportionate influence on their ecosystem than other members. In part for this reason, there is interest in helping the animal to become reestablished in parts of its former range in the U.S, Britain, and elsewhere.
Continue reading ‘Reintroducing the beaver (Castor fiber) to Scotland: a protocol for identifying and assessing suitable release sites’

Comparison of a geographical information system versus manual techniques for land cover analysis in a riparian restoration project.

Harris, R.R., Hopkinson, P., McCaffrey, S., and Huntsinger, L. 1997. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52:2.

Many of the papers I’ve reviewd on GIS and restoration are from the late 1990s when the utility of GIS was really catching on. Authors of the papers I read were enamored with the possibilites GIS presented–for good reason. But a dose of caution is always valuable. Here is an interesting paper that challenges the superiority of GIS to manual techniques for analysis of land cover and other spatial data. It seems these folks haven’t been so quick to drink the GIS Kool Aid.

At the time, it seems the acquisition and adoption of GIS was an expensive proposition (perhaps it doesn’t seem so daunting now that the value of GIS is well-established). So the authors set to work to do a cost-benefit analysis of the adoption of GIS for riparian restoration with the intention of informing local government and small NGOs.

The authors compared the efficacy and time-costs of GIS vs. manual analysis techniques in obtaining informaion necessary for stream reach classification and other simple restoration-relevant tasks. 

The authors found that training someone in the use of a GIS tool significantly more time than trainign in manual methods. They also found that manual methods were faster and explained that a GIS was not necessarily more accurate. While they acknowledged the value of GIS to large-scale projects, in storing data permanently and analyzing it quickly, and in presenting a clear and persuasive product, they offered that the time and monetary investment required by GIS (software, hardware, training, etc) may not be worthwhile for small entities. They also suggested that GIS was not essential for small-scale projects.

While I know that these considerations are legitimate (I am taking a 3 month course just to learn basics in GIS!), after having seen the capabilities of GIS and having red some of the other papers on this blog, I just can’t imagine attempting a restoration or other natural resource management task without it. I have to think that even if costs haven’t declined since 1997, that the benefits of GIS have raced ahead far enough to justify the investment. I guess I’ve had some of the Kool Aid.

GIS methodology for characterizing historical conditions of the Willamette River flood plain, OR
Oetter, D.R., Gregory, S.V., Ashkenas, L.R., Minear, P.J.

Continue reading ‘GIS methodology for characterizing historical conditions of the Willamette River flood plain, OR’

Remote sensing and GIS techniques for selecting a sustainable scenario for Lake Koronia, Greece

Alexandridis, T.K., Takavakoglou, V., Crisman, T.L., and Zalidis, G.C.
Continue reading ‘Remote sensing and GIS techniques in restoration’

GIS-based evaluation of salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest

Lunetta, R.S., Cosentino, B.L., Montgomery, D.R., Beamer, E.M., and Beechie, T.J. 1997. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing.

The authors of this study sought to develop a rapid, cost-effective, and objective analytical tool to support prioritization of specific sub-basins and watersheds for salmon habitat restoration and preservation. At the time, the maintenance and restoration of stream habitats lack a common scientific framework for guiding prioritization of sites.

Using GIS, they were also able to create a baseline to support watershed analysis. The group used digital elevation models to classify stream channels by slope, pattern, and morphology. Characteristics of streams (such as whether they are pool-riffle  or plane bed, which matters to salmon) can be inferred from these parameters, and so the authors were able to make a fast, cost-effective characterization of a large geographical area by using only a few parameters and GIS. Coupling in other important characteristics, such as forest seral stage adjacent to streams (with remote sensing data) allowed them to build a regionally-consistent information base for restoration managers.

Indirect environmental effects of dikes on estuarine tidal channels: Thinking outside of the dike for habitat restoration and monitoring

Hood, G.W. 2004. Estuaries 2.

Another challenge in restoration is the problem of the disappearing baseline. What exactly is a system being restored to? Do we know what it looked like before disturbance? Often, we don’t, as the data simply isn’t available.

In atempting to construct what a system looked like before human disturbance, managers will use a host of non-traditional sources of information. Interviews. Historical maps. Archaeological sites. Historical photographs. But how can something like an old photo be integrated with modern data? Thanksfully, GIS is an incredibly versatile tool.

Hood et al used a GIS to compare historical aerial photographs with modern digital orthophotos. The historical photos were from a variety of sources and at different scales than the modern orthophotos. Using the Image Analyst Extension for ArcView, the authors were able to use common reference points to rectifythe two sets of photos. The authors were able to gain a window into tidal marsh habitat loss.

This method saved money by avoiding costly and detailed field measurements and allowed for the assessment of historic estuarine habitat loss seaward of dikes despite a lack of historic data.

The feasibility of reintroducing wild boar (Sus scrofa) to Scotland
Leaper, R., Massei, G., Gorman, M.L., and Aspinalli, R. (1999). Mammal Review 29.

The reintroduction of a species that has been decimated or extirpated (usually by human impacts) is a valuable tool for conservation. But it comes with myriad panning challenges. One such challenge where GIS is especially useful is in assessing potential habitat for reintroductions (although as we’ve seen, GIS can be useful in other realms in restoration). These projects often use models to identify potential habitat.

The authors explore the feasibility of reintroducing the wild boar (Sus scrofa) to portions of its former range in Scotland. They use what was then (1999) a still new-feeling tool in GIS to identify areas where pre-determined habitat characteristics that are favored by the species will co-occur.

Some of the attributes used to select sites included patch size, vegetative cover type, and proximity to agriculture, urban settlements, and roads. Using GIS, the authors were able to incorporate multiple data sources into their assessment.

After identifying potential sites, the authors were then able to match the characteristics of the identified sites with a population viability analysis to predict the fate of a reintroduced wild boar population.

Pairing these methods allowed the authors to use a predictive model to identify four suitable sites and to conclude that biologically, a reintroduction was feasible. They concluded that more research was to be done to compliment theirs and to investigate other considerations in a reintroduction project, such as socioeconomic impacts.

Can GIS predict habitat use of reintroduced bighorn sheep?

Shannon, J.M, Olson, D.D., Petersen, S.L., Whiting, J.C., and Flinders, J.T. (2008). Proceedings from the 28th Annual International ESRI User Conference. August, 2008.

Wildlife reintroduction is a means of restoration of individual species and the ecosystem services they provide. While some successful reintroductions (see: Northern Rockies gray wolf) reeive plenty of press, there is no shortage of examples of failed reintroduction efforts. A failed understanding of species-habitat relationships can be one machanism inhibiting success of such efforts. Often, landscapes have changed due to anthropogenic influences and can no longer support some native species. Available habitat may be too small or of low quality for the needs of a species. Or it may be isolated from other populations or other habitats used seasonally.

Bighorn sheep restoration in Utah had experienced mixed results at the time this paper was written. Only 4 of 17 reintroduced populations in the state were regarded as successful and the authors describe a metapopulation that seems not to have experienced any growth 8 years after reintroduction. The authors suspect that habitat is insufficient to meet the needs of the species and set out to test a model that has been used to predict bighorn habitat use.
Continue reading ‘GIS and understanding habitat use’

http://oregonexplorer.info/EnhancingWatersheds#TheOWRIDatabaseandGISdata

Oregon Explorer is a handy web-based mapping service and database that is easy to use and of creative application. One of the many tools housed here is the Watershed Restoration Tool, an inventory of restoration data for the state. Besides simply displaying restoration sites on  amp, this tool also provides attribute data that describes project description, status, coast and other details.

The Restoration Tool allows the selection of individual projects, entire river systems, or entire planning basins. Data available to view or download includes that on fish passage projects, wetland projects, riparian projects, urban projects, land ownership and more. The data is overlayed on a baselayer provided by Bing, a familiar visual layout and interface for public users.

Restoration managers in Oregon recognize the value in providing accessible information to the public, as the public-including landowners, volunteers, etc.–is important to restoration efforts.

Personally, I find this tool useful in understanding some of the environment I work in–trying to restore oysters on the Yaquina and Netarts. Land ownership is useful, but this tool does not provide it at a fine enough resolution and does not seem to have subtidal lease rights included.

Acoustic mapping and GIS-aided oyster restoration.
Lazor, J., Bruce, D., Giordano, S., Levin, D., Little, C., and Slacum, W. Proceedings of Coastal Zone 07. Portland, OR. July 2007.

Oysters require hard substrate to settle on and so understanding the benthic characteristics of an estuary are important to oyster restoration. This proceedings from the 2007 Coastal Zone Conference held right here in Oregon details a mapping project that employs satellites and GIS to better paint a picture of estuarine bottom. This will allow restoration managers to most effectively locate their efforts.
Continue reading ‘Acoustic mapping and GIS-aided oyster restoration’

A habitat suitability index model for the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), a tool for restoration of the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida.
Barnes, T.K. Vollety A.K., Chartier, K., Mazzotti, F.J., and Pearlstine, L. 2007. Journal of Shellfish Research 26:4.

Florida’s everglade system, which was once an expansive, highly productive system has been decimated by conversion of land and alteration of its hydrology. Recent years have brought an interest in restoring this important wetland system–including the headline-grabbing planned purchase of U.S. Sugar land by the state for restoration. While this effort has hit snags in the recent national economic environment, Everglades restoration efforts and interest continue.

Managers often seek to design restoration plans that will be most effective for species of interest. Or design may consider how to benefit the most species. Planning restoration around a keystone species is one way to may a big impact.  Barnes et al describe the development of a habitat suitability index (HSI) model for weighing restoration alternatives. Using the eastern oyster (Crassosotrea virginica) as their evaluation species, the team incorporated a number of habitat metrics (salinity, temperature, substrate, high flow frequency) into their model to assess alternatives for this keystone species.
Continue reading ‘Using GIS to create a habitat suitability index model for eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)-favorable restoration’

NROU Report OR SeaGrant

(click link above)

This is another project I’ve been working on, which will also include a GIS aspect.

I am currently working on maps for this, as we collected spatial use data on mail surveys. But I am confronted with a number of issues. Firstly, how do I deal with the wide scales used by people in drawing on the coastal use maps (e.g. one person puts a fine point while another shades in several miles’ worth of coastline)? I am currently working to identify a pattern among use groups (surfers, divers, sailors, etc.) to see if some trended toward finer scales than others. I am also considering that some use groups use more coastline than others and may be best represented with a polygon vs. a point feature. So, I will likely end up creating multiple layers based on point vs. line vs. polygon representation.

Secondly, given that these are drawings on maps being transferred to ArcMap, what are the accuracy implications? What are the limitations on what I can infer?

The third consideration relates to ethics and GIS. As discussed in class, ethics need to be considered in revealing data graphically. Certainly, some people may not want their “spots” revealed. Surfers are known to be territorial at times, although I would assume that these are the people that passed on filling out the maps at all. Survey respondents were asked to fill out the maps, but not explicitly told that this information might be used to create maps (although this should have been a safe assumption). How to proceed with this?

I’ve got some thinking to do.

photo from http://treeleafidentification.
blogspot.com

Macmillian, D.D., Harley, D., and Morrison, R. (1998). Cost-effectiveness of woodland ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics, 27.

Ecological restoration is often plagued by poor science, unavailability of usable data, and funding limitations. In their reporting on a cost-effectiveness analysis for Caledonian woodland restoration in Scotland, Macmillan et al assign a prominent role to GIS. Macmillan et al describe a system in 1998 Scotland, in which the government incentivizes restoration of private lands by paying landowners to create new woodlands. Typically, payments were correlated with cost of restoration, the most expensive of which involved planting new woodlands. The authors explain that the value of restoration, especially in terms of policy makers” ability to portray “value for the money” is difficult, especially in that many of the services provided by restored woodlands are non-market. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is offered as a promising solution, although it has faults: while it is designed to select the least cost option for meeting restoration objectives, it fails to consider that objectives in restoration are difficult to interpret and that the extent to which individual woodlands meet the objectives varies.
Continue reading ‘GIS and restoration cost analysis’

Russel, G.D., Hawkins, C.P., O’Neill, M. P. (1997). The role of GIS in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land use. Restoration Ecology, 5: 4S.

The authors report a growth in wetland restoration and mitigation in Southern California at time of publication. This was tied to a growth in development (surprise, surprise Southern California) and the regulatory mandate that no net loss of wetlands occur as a result of development. At the time, wetland mitigation and restoration had met limited success: the authors cite another study that explains that only 5% of such projects were successful, based on whether or not they were compliant with state permit goals. The authors suggest that poor site selection was driving some of this failure and they criticize the “on site, on kind” way of thinking that seeks to match restored wetlands to the type and location of those lost. This, they explain, ignores sites with better potential, forces selection of inferior sites, and neglects a watershed scale approach.
Continue reading ‘GIS and restoration site selection’

Because there are already too many blogs focusing on cat videos. And because it is a class requirement.

But beyond these justifications, there is value in exploring how GIS is aiding in ecological restoration. At least there is to me. I have been involved in the field of ecological restoration since 2005 and hope to leave graduate school with the skills necessary to be a decision-maker in this field. I have seen the importance of GIS in the projects I’ve worked on. GIS-generated maps were employed to identify suitable nesting habitat for the orange-breasted falcon in Belize. Decommissioned and newly restored natural gas well sites with cheat grass invasions were mapped for the BLM with ArcMap. And known Olympia oyster habitat in Yaquina Bay was documented using GPS and GIS, complete with habitat data in an attribute table. 

What is ecological restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration defines this growing science as: 

“the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” 

Degradation, damage, or destruction are usually caused or at least exacerbated by anthropogenic influences. The ways humans in which can alter ecosystems seems to be of as much diversity as the multitude of ecosystems that exist on earth. Whether by dam or by drill, by fire or fill, or by plow or pollution, humans continue to alter the systems of the planet. But a growing field seeks to alter systems for good–to initiate or accelerate an ecosystem’s return to health, integrity, and sustainability (Society for Ecological Restoration [SER], 2011).

Restoring a system to a previous or historic state closely resembling what it may have looked like prior to human disturbance requires setting clear goals and a rationale for restoration. It also requires an understanding of the restoration site, the former state of the restoration site,  a designated and fully understood reference site, an understanding and explanation of how the restored site will integrate with surroundings, explicit plans and bugets, well-defined performance standards, monitoring, and a clear strategy in dealing with challenges (Society for Ecological Restoration [SER], 2011).

While this is a process full of complexities , there are tools that can help in achieving restoration success. The use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is one such ally in restoration management. GIS may help managers understand surrounding land use and how it may be contributing to the degradation of a system or how restoration activities may impact the users of such lands. It may make analysis of the progress of restored vegetation or water flow easier. Or it may help to produce the visual products needed for communication with decision makers and the public. Indeed, GIS is a powerful weapon in natural resource management and the burgeoning field of ecological restoration relies on GIS.

This blog will explore how GIS is contributing to restoring the world’s ecosystems–from marine to aquatic to terrestrial–and help further my understanding for career applicability. And, hopefully, a good grade in GEO565.

 

References: Society for Ecological Restoration [SER] website. http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp#3. Accessed February 07, 2011.