Importance of Natural Resources

Ecological Links Between an Anthropogenic Stressor, Final Ecosystem Services

Well, he goes to some services in this project in particular Some of the problems and objectives of this research Going to describe to you the framework we developed to link Ecosystem Services or link impacts due to stressors, anthropogenic stressors to ecosystem services Talk about the workshop that we held to focus us on acid deposition and then developing better Stories for communicating these issues to the public? So first off on the national park service you may know us from National Parks such as Yellowstone yosemite And the grand tetons on there are over four hundred and thirteen national park units in the [us] right now And they’ve been developed to preserve biological geologic and cultural resources across the u.s. in 2015 there are over 300 million visitors who came to individual national Parks and this year being the National Park centennial that number increased significantly The mission in General of the National Park Service is to preserve the natural and cultural Cultural resources for this and future generations, and so we’re looking at the the current impact as well as long term impacts to These protected lands The air resources division may be less known to most people. We’re part of the natural resource stewardship and science directorate We are one of 12 different divisions who? power like the scientific arm of the park service all focus on different impacts to different aspects of Parks their resources division Basic mission is to breathe easy see far and let Nature thrive So focused on the visitor the visitor experience and the ecosystems within the park within the division itself, we deal with Policy planning permit review monitoring of air pollutants atmospheric research such as modeling and Ecosystem effects research as to what What is happening in the parks? One of the nice things about the air resources vision is that air touches everything? But and so it’s impacting all of the different processes that occur in the parks but one of the hard thing about it is an air comes from [everywhere], and so sometimes it’s we don’t have direct control over what’s causing these negative impacts So why do we care about you ecosystem services as the National Park service overall It’s kinda. It’s becoming law in October 2015. There’s a member a federal matter memorandum, release Thought the leading federal agencies to discuss how they’re incorporating ecosystem services into federal decision making One of the benefits for us is it allows us to connect to visitors? Employees as well as other stakeholders and to fully understand the impacts and trade-offs associated with the decisions One of the other reasons that it’s good for the air resources division because air isn’t something that most part visitors think about unless it’s really bad and a lot of times you’ll [see] it’s bad when their smoke or the Visibility is an issue, but they don’t really fully comprehend what’s What’s happening with it? so in general The problem one of the problems we’re seeing in the parks. Is that the ecosystems are changing we are Experiencing climate change there’s air they’re changing due to air pollution to increase fires and into direct Habitat destruction and type conversion of Ecosystems which happens less in Parks, but more on the federal lands outside of them One of the problems with these changes [is] that the species that often change first? with a change in these stressors are smaller Nondescript species that don’t attract the public attention Sometimes in the case the climate change you get a cute little animal like pica. Which is being heavily infected by increasing alpine temperature, but for the most part when people think about Diatoms lichens and Small invasive grasses, I think who cares see this isn’t our problem there’s also a bit of a disconnect with the public between what scientists think and What the public understands in terms of science I pulled these next two graphs off of the gallup poll site they’re from 2015 instead of the 16 and 15 with Just kind of showing how public And worry about climate change that is changing Has changed over time and while ninety-seven percent of scientists are concerned about? global warming currently only sixty-four percent of The public are the Second one, I thought was interesting just kind of highlight the difference in this one is that how concerned are you with climate change are you personally and I think that was the important part of dealing with the Ecosystem services. It allows this personal connection to the changes that are occurring The other aspect of it. Is that there’s a wide range. This is just based on Partisan differences of Who believes that’s actually happening and so I think one of the important thing to note here? is that we’re probably going to have to tell different stories to reach the red dot than we are to reach the blue dot and We need to be [aware] of our audiences as we’re trying to relate the signs that we’re doing to the public So the objectives of this project were to link changes due to a stressor such as climate change or at the deposition or air pollution to an ecosystem component that people care about to move past that biological indicator the second is to identify the groups of people who are being impacted by the changes and The third was to develop narratives to communicate the science to write broader audience so as you’d expect to come based on the we’re presenting this we’re using the Ecosystem Services as this interpretive tool to the public and Ecosystem Services generally known as nature’s benefits our Ecosystem components or processes that are appreciated by the General public and Different outputs from the Ecosystem or from the Earth that people use these can range from appreciating the sight of a bird to water purification to Timber harvested for houses the broad range of endpoints one of the most common categorization of sort of Ecosystem Services comes from the Blenheim Ecosystem Assessment, which kind of breaks it down into four different types supporting provisioning regulating and cultural services The other thing I think when the public general thinks about Ecosystem services they think about one thing how are we monetizing the The environment, what’s it worth in a dollar value versus What does it mean just generally [speaking]? Within this work. We’ve used it different. We’re trying to use a different categorization. Just because of some [of] the limits of something such as provisioning or cultural services and that they could be a or some of the supporting ones as well like you see I get an intermediate service where a provisioning service like pollination or photosynthesis can Lead to Growth of the Tree or the persistence of a species within a community So we try to focus on the concept of final ecosystem services which are those components of Nature directly enjoyed Consumed or used to yield human well-being And this kind of is that last thing the nature produces that That people use and the benefit of doing this [is] that it helps to avoid double counting services So when we are prescribing value to it? We’re not Going to be counting pollination as well as the trees that are Pollinated or the plant the flowers and the honey that’s produced through pollination, but just kind of cutting that last thing that we can identify. So when we started this project We had basically three boxes that we were looking at we knew that our stressors were changing biological indicators. We knew that when biological indicators change they were going to have the create changes within the ecosystem some kind of cascading effect. And we also knew [that] people benefit from some Ecosystem processes potentially being changed. So what we did and created this framework which we refer to as the steps framework by our the random letters that we chose from the first looking at how the distraction biological indicator which is in our stressors module. We then looked at the change in that biology how that change in a biological indicator leads to cascades through the Ecosystem to Lead to a change in an ecological endpoint. Through the ecological production function, and then finally using that ecologic end point to classify it as an Ecosystem service using a set classification system. The change from- the change due to a stressor, to that final Ecosystem service we refer to as a chain. And so there’s like one chain of events that links that the change in biological Indicator to A beneficiary group of some kind. So the first step in the equation is this stressors module and the stressor. We wanted to make to set this up, so you can be used for any stressor that impacts environmental conditions. Generally a stressor is not going to act directly on a specie of biological species although it can in some cases. But often there’s like this chemical component often unseen or difficult to measure within the system. That’s tread that chemical component will then impact this a biological species, and then we as scientists. Can measure this change in biological species. To understand how the stressor is the first thing noticed and measured within the system. we kind of link loops all this together because a lot of times we- we only have, we can look at gradients and looking at change in. Change along the gradient and change in species along that same gradient, or whether that great maybe time or distance. For each of the, Okay, so throughout this I’m going to be talking about a couple different sos scores. So S.O.S stands for strength of science and so each of the Components that we identify here. We are that our based on scientific literature that shows these changes occur. So the S.O.S stressor score addresses the varying levels of uncertainty in there in the stressor indicator relationship. We classify these in three groups of high, medium and low whether this there are multiple supporting sources that this stressor causes a change in the biological indicator. If there is modeled, or conflicting responses, or if it’s changes based on expert opinion, or unpublished data, or you transfer data from one Ecosystem to another where similar species are present, but it hasn’t been measured directly. The next step is moving from that biological indicator to- through the ecological production function. These are the cascading Ecosystem effects that occur when that first species changes. The psychological production function can have either it can have 0 to end steps. But the longer you get away from the initial change, the more likely other things are going to be competing to change those downstream effects. The [zero] staff, so that sometimes those changes in biological indicators are things that people would care about directly. And so when the stressor changes something like that There’s no need to have an ecological production function because at that component is already valued by the public. And then the final component of the chain we labeled as the ecological endpoint Which is what is used appreciated or valued by humans. Within each [of] these steps. we also identified an S.O.S score just to identify the scientific publications that represent the strength of one component influencing the second component within the chain. This is basically leads us to a series of documentation of the cause of effect. We then average to all of those effects scores together to understand the general strength of [that] relationship between the change in the indicator and the change in the end point. The next step in the chain of what is identifying the- the- Edict of classifying the environmental component and classifying the user group who Interact with that component. I think it’s important for us [to] understand which user groups are Interacting because it provides that the endpoint of codes of who were reaching out to in these situations. So we want to direct interaction between a beneficiary and the ecosystem. Identify the group which allows us in the future identify metrics of understanding the important aspects of the change that we need to be measuring. So also facilitates direct communication and collaboration between natural and social scientists as we figure out how best to interact with the affected parties. The lasses value we calculate is the S.O.S chain score and this [inner] this links together the S.O.S stressor with all the effects scores and creates an average value for the entire chain. Within that we also identify the strengths assigned to the weakest link because well had you many people say it changes only as strong as its weakest [link]. And this is important because yes, sometimes like you have very strong science up until one point where you assume there’s a connection there, but the hasn’t been published on. But can allow us to focus on those to fill in research needs and truly understand the system we’re working with from there, we kind of identified as this black box of measures of human well-being. We want to put these take these chains and start to find a better way to value the difference, value our outputs, as Within a broader context. And I’ll talk that’s been outside the scope the initial scope of this project, but as this finish top we’re looking forward to developing this part further. And so basically what we attempted to do was identify the supply side from the Ecosystem to society. And classify in a way that all parties who are potentially affected by the changes are enumerated. And then the demand side we’re hoping to work in the future to figure out the details of what’s going on there. So in doing this we developed the case study which [was] an air quality and Ecosystem services workshop. This was held in February of 2015 and we’ve had 27 participants which were land managers, scientists and economist. And through this we published a workshop report that kind of gives a broad overview of how we got together -how these processes dealt with and how we tried to do over talking about tonight? The stressor in question that we used at [the] Workshop was acid deposition. And Acid deposition is mostly made up of sulfur and nitrogen that has been released from power stations, or combustion, motor vehicles, or potentially livestock. These emissions come off of and out of these processes or travel through general air mass movements. And are deposited either through dry deposition directly to the service of the ecosystem or interact with rain and are [rained] in to the ecosystem. Common ,like one of the common forms, of what deposition is you’re probably familiar with is acid rain. And while always have to significantly decrease the amount of acid rain in the U.S. over the last 30 years there’s still enough that is changing ecosystems. Particularly what we’re trying to, what we use was exceedance – of exceedances of critical loads of acid deposition. So when you add a little bit of, like as it with your garden, if you add a little bit of nitrogen to it. You’re probably not going to see all that much different a lil bit fertilizer. But when you add a lot of just like you have the right amount or just a lot of fertilizer. You’re going to start seeing a lot of change occurring. Your plants are going to grow a little bit faster. You’re going to change which species is were dominant, and you’re most likely if any of your partners out there. You’re going to get a few more weeds at first, that you’re going to have to pull out. So the critical load is the threshold of deposition below its specified harmful ecological effects do not occur. Generally speaking, and we don’t treat our national parks like gardens. We want to preserve them as they have always been and so while adding nitrogen widget. Which is a fertilizer. We’re changing the competitive relationships of this piece in the parks generally to the detriment of a normally functioning functioning ecosystem. Within the Workshop we looked at four different modes of response to deposition. With nitrogen you generally have on the right hand side of this this diagram you have nutrification. Nutrification occurs across the U.S., but is a larger problem in the West. Aquatic eutrophication can lead to changes in aquatic species. The general algal blooms that you’ll see in a lake and terrestrial eutrophication we have losses of like in as well as invasive species like these different community patterns changing. Then we had a certification which acidification of three waters is leading [to] loss of aquatic species, and acidification terrestrial species is changing the soil Biota and changing the solar structure, what changes plant. Plant growth and the acidification problems [have] been focused on the east coast due to the amount of sulfur deposition that’s occurred there. So there’s two general responses by biological indicators to this increase deposition. They can either increase in growth if they have like a fertilizer effect ,or if one of their competitors as a negative growth effect or they can decrease in Growth. They can also have no effect some species are more tolerant to changes in nutrient levels. When these things happen it can lead [to] a loss of the species from the environment. It can be into a change in species competition if composition of one species grows a lot faster. Or it can disorient then they can disrupt food web dynamics when that species is no longer there. The plan to wear a pollinator used to be is no longer there. Then the birds are potentially messed up. The picture on the right is of invasive grasses in the desert in Southern California some of my graduate research showing that the general east of the desert at this time would be full of colors and lots of green native plants. But instead in this area of high deposition, we had a monoculture of this invasive grass that has the potential to change many levels of the Ecosystem outside of it. um The the base -the base data that we used in starting this process [is] within each of these groups is the national critical load’s database which is managed by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program. And this is a compilation of all the empirical and calculated critical loads and Information on many regional and national scale projects. And so this is kind of that starting point and what allowed us- why we had chosen to work from this space was we had a very strong science in the stressor category of where we were. And then we had a group kind of focusing on the downward the downstream effects. An example of what these critical load maps would look like, so this this is from [the] National Park service Air Resources Division website. Kind of showing different areas of the forests [in] the west that [are] in exceedance of a critical load. So there’s more deposition then it takes to cause a change in the ecosystem. The red areas are above [the] critical load and the blue areas are below. So there’s a lot of area in the west that is at risk for changes due to deposition. So within once we had all these changes in biological indicators. We move to [the] ecological production function and really looked into what happens next. We looked at food chain responses, their increase in fire risk, increase in erosion, potential for increased pet fest infestation. Each of these we kind of did a literature review to make sure that each of these linked were based in science and linked back to previous research. In the final category and the final Ecosystem services we chose [to] use the final good system goods and services classification system. We did this because it provided a distinct environmental class in the in distinction beneficiary class that uses that environmental component. It also had a set structure of beneficiary classes it allowed us to kind of group people’s group- group different parts of society together and have some consistency in our results. So instead of classifying different native plants associations. We would put those people in as experiencers, and you can users of the environment. This also allowed having these distinct classes to identify Distinct Metrics and avoided double counting of services while multiple- we could associate multiple different beneficiaries with a single environmental endpoint. We by having those classified together we would understand that they’re all somewhat unique. So to give an example of what one of these chains looks like or what the process we went through was. We’re going to take you to the coastal sage scrub of Southern California. One of the dominant one of the well-studied critical loads of the area was looking at increased invasive grass to native for ratio and this basically means that with more nitric deposition the invasive grasses grow faster than the native Forbes and as in that picture I showed earlier out-compete them. So we start with as invasive grasses grow we have an increased fire fuel load. With increased fire fuel load we have increased fire frequency. With increased by our frequency we have a loss of shrub cover. This picture is probably a little small, but on far, like the upper left of the picture is an area that had burned once about 50 years ago and it had recovered to its full shrub cover in the past. The middle of the picture you can see a little bit darker brown had burned twice 30 years out of the first burn and has partially recovered, but the third picture which had burned three times in the last burn being two years after the second did not have any shrugged recovery at all. So as we lose the shrub cover and have increased invasive species, we lose the California gnatcatcher which is a threatened species in California from the environment. And being something that on the endangered species list or on the threatened species list is of significance both to the state and to bird Watchers and such. So using that loss of California gnatcatcher as our ecological endpoint. (So this was the ecological production function there) We tied that to multiple beneficiaries who would be potentially impacted by this excess Nitrogen deposition. This is what it looks like kind of more structurally, you can see starting from the left. We have the critical load exceedance. We have a biological indicator in the red box. The purple boxes represent the multiple ecological production functions which will be to the green circles which are the ecological endpoints. And so we identified five different ecological end points and 11 different beneficiaries. And so if you were to follow each of these chains individually it would Lead to 45 different chains, just due to the change in one biological indicator. So as I mentioned we had four different subsets in those four different modes of response in each of them created their own number of Links to ecosystem services. Each of them went on a- the one thing [that] was was good about this workshop Is that we gave people this framework and we told them the general plan. But then they all went about it in a slightly different way, and so we total up identified 44 different changes of biological indicators and linked that to 77 different ecological endpoints. And over a thousand different chains identified linking a change in air quality to a change in beneficiaries interaction with the environment. These numbers are meant to be directly compared because of the different methods that were used. So It just doesn’t mean that terrestrial eutrophication is the most important impact, But we have just identified those that many groups ,or that many links based on them the methods used. so this is in this one these next few slides will kind of identify how what those differences of like. So the Terrestrial eutrophication group decided to go all in and look at all the research that have been done on- within all the different ecoregions So on the outsides this moves from the outside going in. The outsides represent the different ecoregions moving into different habitats and then to the critical loads and in through the ecological production functions. So this was the most complex really set of relationships developed within the groups and really highlighted like the broad brushstroke that could be this could be used for to really identify all of the impacts. Alternatively the Terrestrial Acidification Group just focus on two different species. It looked at the Balsam fur which is the top set of relationships and the white Ash which the bottom set of relationships. And one of the great things about this exercise was that it really highlighted the how specific this that like this could be used in a local setting, like if you know that this one speciesism is being impacted in your region you could really identify those broader impacts. Instead of just with a professional education group did was change in forest cover this like focuses on the individual species, the individual types of bird, and animal species that respond to it. And specific groups that are impacted. The aquatic each vacation group focused more on mostly on a shift in the diatom community and so they kind of focused, which is this top the top half of the relationships here, and just kind of how the change in one set of species cascades through the environment. They’d split there’s up into three different regions, instead of like within the same community ,with like the same shifted diatoms in Alpine lakes and lick pub in regular lakes and then in rivers and streams. So theirs is more water body type compared and lastly the aquatic- aquatic acidification. They put a lot of their focus on kind of the physiological impacts,like what’s what are the chemical that they’re looking at, the chemical impacts and how are those chemical impacts impacting the function of these species in the [Ecosystem]. And these are these orange blocks that weren’t present and the other diagrams. So this is a result slide showing the total count of chains from each beneficiary group. So on the x-Axis is a list of all the different groups that we identified and on the y-Axis is that number of Chains. So the first thing you notice is that there’s this large- this group on the left of, that are all similarly more than the rest. And these represent the non-consumptive users of the Ecosystem. The artists spiritual and spiritual celebrations, educators, researchers, people who care, experiencers and viewers. Those people who come in and just have like in a more of an emotional response to the area than an economic response. We then have more of our economic aspects on the, over here which are still higher than a lot of the other groups, but are much less so. And part of this distinction Is that since these are done, (A) we’re looking at direct negative effects of a stressor, so an Ecosystem itself can potentially produce many more timber and wastewater treatment type of things. We’re focused on just how those things change due to the stressor at hand,not the total production from the Ecosystem. We then took the strength of science scores and thumb those together for all the groups, so star on the left is just the strength of science for the ecological production function Which is on the x-Axis and the frequency on the y-Axis. You’ll notice here that they’re men because we thought we’re focused in a group of experts. There is a highly weighted frequency towards the various sciences extremely well known with a score of 1 for most of these relationships. The Terrestrial notification group having spread out their their knowledge far into many different ecoregion. Ran into more through less defined science ,which kind of reduce the rank of some of the its ecological production functions. The graph on the right is the S.O.S chain score, so this is the the average of all of the effects within the ecologic production function plus bottom stressor. And you’ll notice [that] there’s a general shift to the left of the frequency on some of these indicating that the stressors are less well known, like the full impact of the stressor is less well known, in some of these situations. And I think that’s important because it allows us to differentiate those where the downstream effects are very are well understood, but where we might have less knowledge about the stressor kind of as focusing in on what- Where we need to focus our efforts our future research efforts. Mentioned previously identifying the weakest link to the chain [and] so this is kind of showing one of the down sides of the equation that we have but the importance of taking this weakest link in the chain length into consideration. On the x axis we have the lowest score of an individual chain whether it be low ,medium or high. And then we on the y axis we have the distribution of S.O.S chain scores for each of those that had a weakest link. And so while the averages of each of the Categories is in the proper direction of change with the weakest link of low or low have a lower average score [than] those of medium or high. You will notice that some of the ones with a low score do rank out overall higher than those of the medium score and so we’re looking into new ways to analyze this using the the length of the Chain. As well as incorporating this weakest link score a little bit stronger just to make sure that those are utilized in management decisions realizing some of the uncertainty that exists. So two of the ways that we’re planning on using these strengths of science scores is, one in research is that identifying those chains with a low strength of science can identify areas of research needs. Especially if that there’s a low score associated with a large group of beneficiaries. Secondly in management where we’re in where you use the scores identify where a large range of stakeholders are impacted, especially when we know the science is strong behind them. And those are the ones we can communicate better to- to the stakeholders as far as what’s going on. This allows managers to prioritize restoration based on the broader impacts as well as the groups who are impacted and identified those chains with lows and strength of science scores that need further evaluation. So now that we had all this information. We have a thousand 77 relationships between Air quality and Ecosystem services. We needed to figure out-we wanted to find a way to develop discover personal relevance in relationship to the change. This was- We [did] [what] we saw-what we did was try to develop narratives that connect With the beneficiary groups, tell a better story about the science, rather than focusing on the diatom is in the lycans directly, talk about what those things are changing and how people can relate to them. The key to this was one to make sure these were based in science, but kept the focus on something the group was already familiar with, so we didn’t have to explain the whole thing But say if you like this, you [should] you’re going to care that air quality is affecting this. So the first one goes back to the case study. I talked about with the coastal sage Scrub And we labeled this one how rain of fertilizer cause of rain of fire. And as I mentioned with the garden before as you- as you would fertilize your garden to change the of the rate at which your plants grow. Nitrogen from the atmosphere Is deposited to ecosystems and fertilizes the natural system. This causes some things to grow faster than others. When if those things that grow faster are invasive plants they cause fire to increase. When fire increases it increases the risk of fire to your homes, and having that increased fire risk is the direct result,or can be associated with atmospheric Pollution. Additionally focusing this on a different beneficiary groups of the birdwatchers um You get the there’s the ability to to tell the story in a different way. Where those people may be coming from a different area [it’s] might not be a direct relationship to their homes in Thrissur Gravelle but the loss of the species of interest to them. And so by talking about the fire and the law the lack of shrubs and keeping the focus more on the California gnatcatcher saying that with the increase, with the change in grasses. You increase fire,which leads to lots of habitat for these iconic species that you’re looking for. Our next story is about ash in an American pastime, so the white ash is highly impacted by acid rain as the as acid rain increases ,and as nutrients, or leached out of the soil we the- trees start to grow slower, and when trees are growing slower they change the amount of air pockets that are in them. White ash is one of the- the main tree species use to create baseball bats the Louisville [slugger]. The reason that [its] uses because it has the right number of air pockets and the right density of woods make them Flexin the ball is hit the more [you] change the growth patterns and the more you change that the quality [of] that would the less likely you are to have. A bat, that’s not going to splinter to break and as I mentioned earlier we’ve had a very strong decrease or very large decreases in acid rain in the last 30 years which I’m really appreciative because it kept the cubs bats on fire for the last three games of the world series and allowed them to flourish in that environment. Is the last thing I talk about today is how acidification cancels Christmas? The Balsam fur, which is the other species we refocused on in the aquatic acidification group. Is one of the very popular Christmas trees and so as acid rain increases the Growth of these Balsam furs decrease as well as the quality of the branches. And so unless you want every Christmas to be a Charlie Brown Christmas. We need to work. We need to bring down acid rain. So we have healthy and Vigorous looking Christmas trees in an association with bad Easter could be cancelled too. Because the snowshoe hare is one of his a species that uses the Balsam fur in the wild for cover. Though as the branch and the branches die back and as the trees grow slower. There’s less cover for the snowshoe hare to avoid its predators. And the snowshoe hare populations in decline in these high acid rate environments. So we started developing a couple different stories based on this based on Ecosystem services and changes due to air quality. One of the forest service is putting out this new poster called celebrating lichens and on the back of this poster it has 40 different ways that lichens impact Ecosystem services. A lot of great stories like these the kind of link it to things people care about. But so we’re trying to first about develop new stories and new ways to associate people with these changes. That one of the things we need to do next is put this over to the demand side, really seek out the stakeholders, give better ideas of what they’re actually looking for at the national Parks. We want to spread this out to looking at other stressors identify Synergistic effects of stressors and then input new science into this framework. So the valuation one of the things especially with these non-consumptive users. Is finding a good method of Identifying both monetary and non-monetary value to the ecosystems. That it’s not just baseball bats. It’s not just timber, but it’s that emotional connection people have. It’s the cultural resources that are being preserved. And really getting a better classification system around that so that we can really, So that we can measure the changes in the Ecosystem correctly. There other– also, there’s a lot of interest and kind of figuring out these broader impacts of other stressors of one of our colleagues is looking into Mercury deposition, and how that’s potentially changing Ecosystem services like fish consumption. And because some help in general climate change is a very obvious one is we’re already seeing many changes within the the parks. I met a researcher who’s looking at fog on the west coast and she’s was kind of thinking that- kind of associated with climate change -how a loss of fog and the redwood forests could potentially have drastic effects to that community. As well as other toxics that could find their way to human health. So once we have more of these relationships elucidated we’re able to identify more synergistic effects of the stressors this is an example from McDonald at all from last year and Pls 1 Which kind of links the synergistic effects of acid deposition and climate change. On the brook trout, so the brook trout is of highly influenced by a high of low acid neutralizing capacity within streams which causes which where deposition is higher higher up on the Mountain top so high in the mountains the brook trout is being pushed out and pushed down to the lower elevations due to acidification but on the lower elevations. Climate change is warming up the stream. So it’s no longer a half there’s no longer habitat on the Lower ends of the mountains for the book route to serve pike to survive. So it’s being pushed up into the center a very small area laughs being squeezed out of its natural area so as these two things can pound on one another it could potentially, quickly, move to completely remove the available habitat for the species. Is this is just one example in a highly study area But there are many others that have the potential to be pulled out. One of the final things is that as you may have noticed we were only we’re currently only looking at the- the fact that one species changes another one. Most of the time this is going to be a negative interaction because we’re looking at species losses in the into the system. These all are going to be changing at different rates, as one species increases another may decrease a little bit slower. And these are fine gene relationships that we’re looking to add to this model In the future, so we don’t really understand the amount of change that’s occurring at any time. Within that add species are lost in the system we need to understand a little bit more about the system and especially local systems. Where are their replacing the species available within the food web or is there something a positive species that can be used by other- the pollinator can use. And then went with acid deposition there’s a chance for this change to be reversible I can we take an action to reset the system back where it is We’re in terms of climate change and this continuous change that’s occurring this there may not be an opportunity to go back. So really identifying where these- These points are where a week and take action to help. improve the system I Just want to highlight that this is only one piece of the puzzle that we’re using to understand ecosystem health and relate are the scientific work of the national park service to the public. And one of the things that and the puzzle of the Earth and understanding the environment is very complex and what we’re hoping here is it to engage more people and helping us put that puzzle together. If we have more hands and more minds. Engaged in the process we’re more likely to make significant changes to help solve this problem. And so that I I ask that you have any stories you have anything that you relate to how you relate to the environment and these changes, please send them to me. I’d love to have more examples of how we go system changes affecting you and Hopefully we can work together in the future kind of helping to spread the message and thanks for your attention

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *