Upland Hardwood Ecosystem Integrity - Blueprint 2.1 This layer is part of an older version of the Blueprint. This data represents the Blueprint 2.1 ecosystem integrity scores for the upland hardwood ecosystem within the South Atlantic LCC geography. To read more about the indicators, please visit the indicator page. Input Data and Mapping Steps Indicators (200 m resolution) were spatially modeled, tested, reviewed, and used as inputs to derive high integrity areas. Please see the Blueprint 2.1 data gallery for more information about indicator spatial data. The integrity scores for this system are based on the upland hardwood indicators, landscapes indicators, freshwater aquatic indicators, and waterscapes indicators. These indicators [...]
Summary
Upland Hardwood Ecosystem Integrity - Blueprint 2.1
This layer is part of an older version of the Blueprint. This data represents the Blueprint 2.1 ecosystem integrity scores for the upland hardwood ecosystem within the South Atlantic LCC geography. To read more about the indicators, please visit the indicator page.
Input Data and Mapping Steps
Indicators (200 m resolution) were spatially modeled, tested, reviewed, and used as inputs to derive high integrity areas. Please see the Blueprint 2.1 data gallery for more information about indicator spatial data.
The integrity scores for this system are based on the upland hardwood indicators, landscapes indicators, freshwater aquatic indicators, and waterscapes indicators. These indicators served as inputs into Zonation, a conservation planning framework and software that produces a hierarchal prioritization of the landscape. Zonation employs an algorithm that proceeds by removing cells of lowest conservation value, minimizing marginal loss to produce a spatial prioritization at a fine scale.
Zonation Parameters and Inputs
-- Inputs: Upland hardwood indicators (upland hardwood birds and urban open space), landscapes indicators (low road density, resilient biodiversity hotspots, and low-urban historic landscapes), freshwater aquatic indicators (permeable surface, riparian buffers, and imperiled aquatic species), and waterscapes indicators (migratory fish connectivity and network complexity).
-- Removal rule = 1 (basic core-area Zonation): In basic core-area Zonation (commonly CAZ), cell removal is done in a manner that minimizes biological loss by picking the cell that has the smallest occurrence for the most valuable feature over all biodiversity features in the cell. In other words, the cell gets a high value if even one species has a relatively important occurrence there.
-- Warp factor = 10: The warp factor defines how many cells are removed at a time per iteration. A lower warp factor provides a finer resolution, but requires a longer model run time. A higher warp factor reduces the time required to run a model, but results in a coarser resolution.
-- Boundary length penalty = 0 (not used): Boundary length penalty (BLP) is a method to induce aggregation of high priority areas. Using a BLP, the hierarchy of cell removal is based upon the conservation value of the cell and the increase/decrease of boundary length that results from the removal of a cell.
-- Edge removal = 1: Determines whether the program removes cells from the edges of remaining landscape (value = 1) or anywhere from the landscape (value = 0). Note that setting this parameter to 0 will increase the running times with large landscapes.
-- Indicator weights = 0.5 for urban open space, 0.1 for low-urban historic landscapes, 1 for all other indicators. We began ecosystem runs with all indicators weighted equally. Due to the small extent of the low-urban historic landscapes indicator, the Zonation results included the full extent of the indicator in the top 10% of the prioritization. This meant that even areas with the lowest indicator values and no overlap with other high indicator values would end up in the highest priority class. To resolve this, we reduced the indicator weight until some areas with lower indicator values were outside of the top 10%. We tested weights of 0.75, 0.6, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1. With urban open space, high values had little overlap with high values of other indicators. That indicated strong trade-offs between that indicator and all others. We reduced the weight of that indicator until at least some of the pixels with the highest indicator value dropped below the top 10% of the prioritization. We tested weights of 0.75, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1. All other indicators were weighted equally in the final Zonation run.
Literature Cited
Moilanen, A., L. Meller, J. Leppänen, F.M. Pouzols, H. Kujala, A. Arponen. 2014. Zonation Spatial Conservation Planning Framework and Software V4.0, User Manual.
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</a> The indicator data and maps provided are only intended for use as a reference tool for landscape-level conservation planning efforts.