File larger than 1GB cannot be downloaded directly via HTTP. Please
create an iRODS account in your iRODS user zone from your profile page
if you have not done so already, and replicate the resource to your iRODS
user zone, then download the large file via iRODS clients such as
icommands and
Cyberduck.
Resource License Agreement
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
In downloading this resource contents you are ethically bound to respect the terms of this license.
Please confirm that you accept the terms of this license below before you can do any downloads for this resource.
Resource License Agreement
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
In downloading this resource contents you are ethically bound to respect the terms of this license.
Please confirm that you accept the terms of this license below before you can do any downloads for this resource.
Copy resource bag to your iRODS user zone
Are you sure you want to copy this resource bag to your iRODS user zone?
Please wait for the process to complete.
Redirecting to the referenced web URL
The content you have requested to access is not stored in HydroShare, and we can’t guarantee its availability,
quality, security, or size. If the externally linked content is large, access may take time.
Get file URL
Choose coordinates
Agreement and uncertainty among climate change impact models: A synthesis of sagebrush steppe vegetation predictions
Ecologists have built numerous models to predict how climate change will impact vegetation, but these predictions are difficult to validate, making their utility for land management planning unclear. In the absence of direct validation, researchers can ask whether predictions from varying models are consistent. Here, we analyzed 43 models of climate change impacts on sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.), pinyon-juniper (Pinus spp. and Juniperus spp.), and forage production on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the United States Intermountain West. These models consistently projected pinyon-juniper declines, forage production increases, and the potential for sagebrush increases in some regions of the Intermountain West. In contrast, models of cheatgrass did not predict consistent changes, making cheatgrass projections uncertain. While differences in emission scenarios had little influence on model projections, predictions from different modeling approaches were inconsistent in some cases. This model-choice uncertainty emphasizes the importance of comparisons such as this.
The projected vegetation changes have important management implications for agencies such as the BLM. Pinyon-juniper declines would reduce the BLM’s need to control pinyon-juniper encroachment, and increases in forage production could benefit livestock and wildlife populations in some regions. Sagebrush habitat may benefit where sagebrush is predicted to increase, but sagebrush conservation and restoration projects will be challenged in areas where climate may not remain hospitable. Projected vegetation changes may also interact with increasing future wildfire risk, potentially impacting vegetation and increasing management challenges related to fire.
Included in this page are the data and code used to complete this analysis and visualize results. This includes the original images of model results used in our analysis, and the code used to process and analyze these images to produce our final results.
Deleting all keywords will set the resource sharing status to private.
Resource Level Coverage
Spatial
Coordinate System/Geographic Projection:
WGS 84 EPSG:4326
Coordinate Units:
Decimal degrees
Place/Area Name:
U.S. Intermountain West
North Latitude
50.0991°
East Longitude
-102.1032°
South Latitude
30.0401°
West Longitude
-121.7907°
Open
Download
Download zipped
Get file URL
Open referenced URL
Refresh
Select all
Content
This resource contains links to external content. Linked content is
NOT stored in HydroShare, and we can't guarantee its availability, quality, or
security.
Confirm files deletion
Consider downloading a copy of file(s) before deleting.
Included on this page are the code and data used in our analysis "Agreement and uncertainty among climate change
impact models: A synthesis of sagebrush steppe vegetation predictions"
The resources included in this repository are:
Contents
draft1_zimmer_et_al_2019.pdf - first draft of final manuscript
draft1_zimmer_et_al_2019_figures.pdf - first draft of final manuscript figures
Analysis - Folder with data and code
raw_images - folder with raw images of model results incoporated in our analysis
georeferenced_rasters - folder with rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing
classified_rasters - folder with rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing
and unsupervised classification
recoded_rasters - folder with rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing,
unsupervised classification, and recoding values to values indicating increases,
decreases, and no change in vegetation
masked_rasters - folder with rasters of model results included in our analysis, after georeferencing,
unsupervised classification, recoding values, and eliminating pixels not overlapping
BLM lands or the Intermountain West
data - folder with additional data used in analysis
renwick_supp.csv - CSV of supplemental results from Renwick et al 2018 used in analysis
study_metadata.csv - CSV of important metadata in reference to the studies and individual
models included in our analysis
zonal_stats_results_masked - folder of CSVs of results from each model, showing the number of
pixels indicating increases, decreases, or no change in vegetation
within each ecoregion of the Intermountain West
gis - folder of gis layers used in analysis. These include BLM land, ecoregions and states
scripts - folder of R scripts/code used in analysis
analyze_renwick_results.R - takes the data from renwick_supp.csv and makes it analyzable similarly to
the other rasters included in analysis
final_analysis_and_figures.R - takes the data in the zonal_stats_results folder and analyzes it and
makes the figures included in manuscript
mask_rasters.R - takes the recoded_rasters and eliminates areas not corresponding to Intermountain West
BLM lands
recoding_rasters.R - recodes the values in the classified_rasters
unsupervised_classification.R - takes the georeferenced_rasters and performs an unsupervised
classification to identify similar pixels
zonal_statistics.R - takes the masked_rasters and performs the zonal statistics analysis, counting the
number of pixels showing increases, decreases, or no change within each ecoregion
The order of our analysis is:
1. Georeference the "raw_images". This was completed in ArcMap, so no script is available.
2. Perform unsupervised classification on georeferenced_rasters to identifty similar pixel groups within images, using
the unsupervised_classification.R script
3. Recode the values of classified_rasters. Classification gives the pixel groups arbitrary values. Recoding the values
to make them meaningful is necessary. We recoded pixels corresponding to decreases in vegetation as -1, pixels
corresponding to increases as 1, pixels corresponding to no change as 0, and pixels not addressing vegetation
(irrelevant background, legends, etc) as N/A. The recoding script is recoding_rasters.R
4. Mask the rasters. In this analysis, we were interested only in Intermountain West BLM lands, so pixels not
overlapping BLM lands in the Intermountain West were removed by masking. The masking script is mask_rasters.R
5. Evaluate zonal statistics of masked rasters. For every masked raster, this counts the number of pixels indicating
vegetation increases, decreases, or no change within every ecoregion of the Intermountain West. The zonal statistics
script is zonal_statistics.R
6. Using CSVs of zonal statistics results, data were analyzed and visualized. The final_analysis_and_figures.R
accomplishes this analysis
____
The results from Renwick et al. were supplemental results not provided as rasters. Therefore, they required some
analysis before they could be considered as other rasters were. The script analyze_renwick_results.R converts
these results from the original CSV of results (which are provided in the "data" folder) into rasters for
analysis. At the end of this script, they are at the end of step 3 (recoding).
Additional Metadata
Name
Value
Expected Results
See Draft 1 of manuscript and figures in files "draft1_zimmer_et_al_2019.pdf"
Expected Reproducibility Level
Artifacts available
References
Related Resources
This resource updates and replaces previous version:
This resource was created using funding from the following sources:
Agency Name
Award Title
Award Number
The Wilderness Society
National Science Foundation
Climate Adaptation Science
1633756
How to Cite
Zimmer, S., G. Grosklos, P. Adler, P. Belmont (2019). Agreement and uncertainty among climate change impact models: A synthesis of sagebrush steppe vegetation predictions, HydroShare, https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.3b420b738128411e8e1e11b38b83b5f1
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment