USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 5224333

Landscape change in the southern Piedmont: challenges, solutions, and uncertainty across scales

M.J. Conroy·Craig R. Allen·J.T. Peterson·L.J. Pritchard·C. T. Moore
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The southern Piedmont of the southeastern United States epitomizes the complex and seemingly intractable problems and hard decisions that result from uncontrolled urban and suburban sprawl. Here we consider three recurrent themes in complicated problems involving complex systems: (1) scale dependencies and cross-scale, often nonlinear relationships; (2) resilience, in particular the potential for complex systems to move to alternate stable states with decreased ecological and/or economic value; and (3) uncertainty in the ability to understand and predict outcomes, perhaps particularly those that occur as a result of human impacts. We consider these issues in the context of landscape-level decision making, using as an example water resources and lotic systems in the Piedmont region of the southeastern United States.

Explore related subjects

Conservation EcologyArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M.J. Conroy, Craig R. Allen, J.T. Peterson, L.J. Pritchard, C. T. Moore. 2003. Landscape change in the southern Piedmont: challenges, solutions, and uncertainty across scales. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/5224333

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2000

Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation

We report an analysis of forest fragmentation based on 1-km resolution land-cover maps for the globe. Measurements in analysis windows from 81 km 2 (9 x 9 pixels, “small” scale) to 59,049 km 2 (243 x 243 pixels, “large” scale) were used to characterize the fragmentation around each forested pixel. We identified six categories of fragmentation (interior, perforated, edge, transitional, patch, and undetermined) from the amount of forest and its occurrence as adjacent forest pixels. Interior forest exists only at relatively small scales; at larger scales, forests are dominated by edge and patch conditions. At the smallest scale, there were significant differences in fragmentation among continents; within continents, there were significant differences among individual forest types. Tropical rain forest fragmentation was most severe in North America and least severe in Europe–Asia. Forest types with a high percentage of perforated conditions were mainly in North America (five types) and Europe–Asia (four types), in both temperate and subtropical regions. Transitional and patch conditions were most common in 11 forest types, of which only a few would be considered as “naturally patchy” (e.g., dry woodland). The five forest types with the highest percentage of interior conditions were in North America; in decreasing order, they were cool rain forest, coniferous, conifer boreal, cool mixed, and cool broadleaf.

Conservation Ecology↗
USGS1999

Protocol and practice in the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests

Waterfowl harvest management in North America, for all its success, historically has had several shortcomings, including a lack of well-defined objectives, a failure to account for uncertain management outcomes, and inefficient use of harvest regulations to understand the effects of management. To address these and other concerns, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began implementation of adaptive harvest management in 1995. Harvest policies are now developed using a Markov decision process in which there is an explicit accounting for uncontrolled environmental variation, partial controllability of harvest, and structural uncertainty in waterfowl population dynamics. Current policies are passively adaptive, in the sense that any reduction in structural uncertainty is an unplanned by-product of the regulatory process. A generalization of the Markov decision process permits the calculation of optimal actively adaptive policies, but it is not yet clear how state-specific harvest actions differ between passive and active approaches. The Markov decision process also provides managers the ability to explore optimal levels of aggregation or "management scale" for regulating harvests in a system that exhibits high temporal, spatial, and organizational variability. Progress in institutionalizing adaptive harvest management has been remarkable, but some managers still perceive the process as a panacea, while failing to appreciate the challenges presented by this more explicit and methodical approach to harvest regulation. Technical hurdles include the need to develop better linkages between population processes and the dynamics of landscapes, and to model the dynamics of structural uncertainty in a more comprehensive fashion. From an institutional perspective, agreement on how to value and allocate harvests continues to be elusive, and there is some evidence that waterfowl managers have overestimated the importance of achievement-oriented factors in setting hunting regulations. Indeed, it is these unresolved value judgements, and the lack of an effective structure for organizing debate, that present the greatest threat to adaptive harvest management as a viable means for coping with management uncertainty. Copyright ?? 1999 by The Resilience Alliance.

Conservation Ecology↗