Synopsis of MTNCLIM 2005 Breakout Session Meeting:
Establishing a CIRMOUNT Ecosystems Working Group
The specific action goals of CIRMOUNT (derived from the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/mtnclim/pdf/CIRMOUNT_ExecSum_sm.pdf) are:
Observation
Implement coordinated high-elevation climate and ecosystem monitoring throughout the western mountains
of North America. Install a network of high-altitude meteorological and hydrological stations and conduct longterm ecosystem observations. Where possible use standardized instruments and protocols to optimize comparisons.
Gather both baseline and ongoing data for comparisons over time.
Research
Promote and facilitate climate research related to mountainous regions of the West. Specifically, improve
knowledge of both the Earth’s past and present climate in the western region, better characterize the natural
variability, and increase understanding of what causes the climate to vary.
Increase knowledge of how western ecosystems respond to climate change, including their sensitivity and
adaptability.
Communication
Provide data and research results in effective formats for scientific, managerial, and general audiences.
Share findings through web sites, publications, scientific meetings, focus groups, and education centers.
Organize monitoring data and research results in easily accessible Internet-based databanks. Integrate western
climate change information into current environmental education efforts.
Decision Support
Provide sound climate-related science for effective land management in western North America. For long-term
planning, develop accurate projections related to western climate change and its effects on natural systems and
resources. Assist policy makers and land-use professionals in managing risks and opportunities related to climate
variability and change.
Establishing a CIRMOUNT Ecosystems Working Group
Participants: Jeremy Littell, Jeff Hicke, Jesse Logan, Ron Neilson, Jim MacMahon, Barry Baker, Don McKenzie,
Bob Gresswell, Peter Stine, Ann Lynch, Dominique Bachelet, Tom Hinckley, Bill Bowman, Scott Mensing,
Michelle Nijhuis, Elizabeth ?
These four categories inspired the brainstorming exercise that formed the core of my description of a
point of departure for the working group (see above). The original goals of the one-hour breakout session
at MTNCLIM were as follows:
o Define focus/identity of working group: Climate impacts to ecosystems, as
opposed to proxy approach of using ecosystems to identify climate change,
climate variability, etc.
o Identify gaps in research
o Identify priorities for this CIRMOUNT working group developing around
key issues
We generally accomplished the first and last bullet. The second will have to wait for products.
Identity
Not surprisingly given the emphasis of the conference, the niche identified by the group
appeared to be the impacts/influence of mountain climates on species and ecosystem processes.
More specifically, the discussion focused on several themes, which included:
• Taking advantage of the gradient of impacts from the urban/wildland interface up to high
elevation protected areas to identify the context-dependent challenges to ecosystem
adaptation to climate change
• Both process-oriented (fire, insects, productivity) and species-oriented (species response,
bioclimatic envelope, species vulnerability) approaches were evident. Some discussion
about what exactly we mean by “process”.
• Multi-scale consideration of processes and impacts (local to regional to continental),
considering site-level changes but also widespread effects
• Extensive inclusion of land managers (e.g., lateral discussion of priorities, research,
applications, a resource of natural history), with discussion about presenting syntheses,
not simply individual studies. Land managers are becoming ready to be involved.
Goals
Products
We discussed several possible “products”, both near-term (1-2 yrs) and longer term (indefinite).
One near-term product we discussed was developing a proposal for workshop funding. This
workshop would target “dirt ecologists” (e.g., those applying principles on the ground), regional
planners/ecosystem managers, conservation organizations, and scientists capable of reenvisioning the research in the first two CIRMOUNT categories and the communication and
decision support defined in the last two. The goal of the workshop would be to identify the
“nearer” term (20-30 yr) problems managers face in terms of climate impacts to a variety of
ecosystems, especially with the co-impacts/constraints imposed by land use change and the
urban wildland interface, despite the increased difficulty of forecasting at this time scale
compared to longer time scales. This would allow identification of scientific gaps in observation
and research that could be addressed by the scientific community. Agency and NGO managers
and scientists would identify and prioritize vulnerabilities (species, processes, etc.) and the
relative advantages, disadvantages, risks, costs, etc. associated with adaptation, mitigation, or
doing nothing. Broad representation among mountain ecosystems, management
mandates/organizations, and positions along the urban-to-high elevation gradient would be
desirable. This activity would mesh with discussions of a workshop between Connie Millar,
Henry Diaz, and Barry Baker.
A second short-term product that I broached but which did not receive much discussion was a
“tan” paper. Nobody seems to know where the term “white” paper comes from, but white papers
are often targeted to leveraging policy, decisions, and/or legislation. Here, our intent is to define
a strategy for integrating research from management problems and applications across to the
research community and back, such that research involves managers from the ground up and the
results are applied in an adaptive management context with ongoing monitoring. The paper could
focus on something like how the nature of the processes most vulnerable/sensitive to climate
change defies classical hierarchical sampling techniques and some solutions to that problem. It
could also focus on the strength of the alignment between (1) what managers WANT/NEED to
know and (2) what scientists are studying. This would, in effect, be a paper to define our identity,
purpose, and goals in a more rigorous scientific venue (Bioscience was suggested). I think this is
a lower priority, however, than the loose affiliation of ideas and strategies that we are
developing.
A longer-term goal is to leverage change in land management plans toward something like
conferring resilience to managed ecosystems.
There was also discussion that this working group could foster and advance research as well as
provide syntheses, perhaps in conjunction with the “Identify research gaps” bullet above.
Actions
Discussion about possible actions for the working group centered on identifying a place with an
appropriately long mountain ecosystem gradient between a developed, urban area and a wild,
higher elevation area. The idea would be to make this a “demonstration project” with the
eventual goal of defining how we do integrated research in mountain ecosystems. The integration
is among researchers, users, techniques, ecosystems etc. Ideas for implementing this point of
departure were:
•
•
•
adopt a forest ready to revise land management plan with managers ready to work
look at a vulnerable ecosystem with vertical gradient and management transect with
different land owners (e.g. private, TNC, agency)
a network of nested watersheds which could capitalize on the watershed-oriented
approaches of integrated assessments but learn lessons from their successes and failures
Jim MacMahon suggested that aligning this action with NEON might be a good strategy to get
funding targeted for just such a project. Others sources suggested were NOAA/OGP, tribal
money, and industry. Peter Stine mentioned adopting an ecosystem with receptive managers.
Interaction with other CIRMOUNT working groups
The discussion didn’t focus on this as much because defining our identity, goals, and potential
actions were first priorities for this session. However, there are some obvious connections to
other working groups.
•
•
Clearly the mountain climate observation networks group could help identify
approaches or work-arounds to the extrapolation of low elevation climates to research
sites/networks at higher elevations; and we could help identify places we think might be
priorities for ecosystem-oriented mountain climate monitoring.
Greg Greenwood identified the usefulness of communication between our CIRMOUNT
working group, especially its intent to define how best to go about climate impacts
research and monitoring in mountain ecosystems, and the European-based Mountain
•
Research Initiative, with its emphasis on a research strategy applicable to mountain
biosphere reserves. We may be able to help Greg with his question about large transects
and networks of research sites.
Could we learn lessons from the GLORIA working group, especially about strategies
that are successful and those that could be improved?
Summary
Where do we next convene? We didn’t address this question at all. Some subset of the group
could be expected at ESA in August, others at the December AGU meeting, although I expect
minimal overlap. It is already too late I think to organize the group for ESA, and there will likely
be limited membership at AGU. Perhaps ESA 2006 would be a good compromise? PACLIM is
likely to draw only a fraction of the interested group. Alternatively, the proposed September
2006 MTNCLIM.