Tag Archives: Spatial modeling

Final project: Washing out the (black) stain and ringing out the details

BACKGROUND

In order to explain my project, especially my hypotheses, some background information about this disease is necessary. Black stain root disease of Douglas-fir is caused by the fungus Leptographium wageneri. It infects the roots of its Douglas-fir host, growing in the xylem and cutting the tree off from water. It spreads between adjacent trees via growth through root contacts and grafts and long-distance via insects (vectors) that feed and breed in roots and stumps and carry fungal spores to new hosts.

Forest management practices influence the spread of disease because of the influence on (i) the distance between trees (determined by natural or planted tree densities); (ii) adjacency of susceptible species (as in single-species Douglas-fir plantations); (iii) road, thinning and harvest disturbance, which create suitable habitat for insect vectors (stumps, dead trees) and stress remaining live trees, attracting insect vectors; and (iv) forest age distributions, because rotation lengths determine the age structure in managed forest landscapes and younger trees (<30-40 years old) are thought to be more susceptible to infection and mortality by the disease.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do (B) spatial patterns of forest management practices relate to (A) spatial patterns of black stain root disease (BSRD) infection probabilities at the stand and landscape scale via (C) the spatial configuration and connectivity of susceptible stands to infection?

In order to address my research questions, I built a spatial model to simulate BSRD spread in forest landscapes using the agent-based modeling software NetLogo (Wilensky 1999). I used Exercises 1-3 to focus on the spatial patterns of forest management classes. Landscapes were equivalent in terms of the proportion of each management class and number of stands, varying only in spatial pattern of management classes. In the exercises, I evaluated the relationship between management and disease by simulating disease spread in landscapes with two distinct spatial patterns of management:

  • Clustered landscape: The landscape was evenly divided into three blocks, one for each management class. Each block was evenly divided into stands.
  • Random landscape: The landscape was evenly divided into stands, and forest management classes were randomly assigned to each stand.

MY DATA

I analyzed outputs of my spatial model. The raster files contain the states of cells in forest landscapes at a given time step during one model run. States tracked include management class, stand ID number, presence/absence of trees, tree age, probability of infection, and infection status (infected/not infected). Management class and stand ID did not change during the model run. I analyzed tree states from the last step of the model run and did not analyze change over time.

Extent: ~20 hectares (much smaller than my full models runs will be)

Spatial resolution: ~1.524 x 1.524 m cells (maximum 1 tree per cell)

Three contrasting and realistic forest management classes for the Pacific Northwest were present in the landscapes analyzed:

  • Intensive – Active management: 15-foot spacing, no thinning, harvest at 37 years.
  • Extensive – Active management: 10-foot spacing, one pre-commercial and two commercial thinnings, harvest at 80 years.
  • Set-aside/old-growth (OG) – No active management: Forest with Douglas-fir in Pacific Northwest old-growth densities and age distributions and uneven spacing with no thinning or harvest.

HYPOTHESES: PREDICTIONS OF PATTERNS AND PROCESSES I LOOKED FOR

Because forest management practices influence the spread of disease as described in the “Background” section above, I hypothesized that the spatial patterns of forest management practices would influence the spatial pattern of disease. Having changed my experimental design and learned about spatial statistics and analysis methods throughout the course, I hypothesize that…

  • The “clustered” landscape will have (i) higher absolute values of infection probabilities, (ii) higher spatial autocorrelation in infection probabilities, and (iii) larger infection centers (“hotspots” of infection probabilities) than the “random” landscape because clustering of similarly managed forest stands creates continuous, connected areas of forest managed in a manner that creates suitable vector and pathogen habitat and facilitates the spread of disease (higher planting densities, lower age, frequent thinning and harvest disturbance in the intensive and extensive management). I therefore predict that:
    • Intensive and extensive stands will have the highest infection probabilities with large infection centers (“hotspots”) that extend beyond stand boundaries.
      • Spatial autocorrelation will therefore be higher and exhibit a lower rate of decrease with increasing distance because there will be larger clusters of high and low infection probabilities when stands with similar management are clustered.
    • Set-aside (old-growth, OG) stands will have the lowest infection probabilities, with small infection centers that may or may not extend beyond stand boundaries.
      • Where old-growth stands are in contact with intensive or extensive stands, neighborhood effects (and edge effects) will increase infection probabilities in those OG stands.
    • In contrast, the “random” landscape will have (i) lower absolute values of infection probabilities, (ii) less spatial autocorrelation in infection probabilities, and (iii) smaller infection centers than the “clustered” landscape. This is because the random landscape will have less continuity and connectivity between similarly managed forest stands; stands with management that facilitates disease spread will be less connected and stands with management that does not facilitate the spread of disease will also be less connected. I would predict that:
      • Intensive and extensive stands will still have the highest infection probabilities, but that the spread of infection will be limited at the boundaries with low-susceptibility old-growth stands.
        • Because of the boundaries created by the spatial arrangement of low-susceptibility old-growth stands, clusters of similar infection probabilities will be smaller and values of spatial autocorrelation will be lower and decrease more rapidly with increasing lag distance. At the same time, old-growth stands may have higher infection probabilities in the random landscape than in the clustered landscape because they would be more likely to be in contact with high-susceptibility intensive and extensive stands.
      • I also hypothesize that each stand’s neighborhood and spatial position relative to stands of similar or different management will influence that stand’s infection probabilities because of the difference in spread rates between management classes and the level of connectivity to high- and low-susceptibility stands based on the spatial distribution of management classes.
        • Stands with a large proportion of high-susceptibility neighboring stands (e.g., extensive or intensive management) will have higher infection probabilities than similarly managed stands with a small proportion of high-susceptibility neighboring stands.
        • High infection probabilities will be concentrated in intensive and extensive stands that have high levels of connectivity within their management class networks because high connectivity will allow for the rapid spread of the disease to those stands. In other words, the more connected you are to high-susceptibility stands, the higher your probability of infection.

APPROACHES: ANALYSIS APPROACHES I USED

Ex. 1: Correlogram, Global Moran’s I statistic

In order to test whether similar infection probability values were spatially clustered, I used the raster package in R (Hijmans 2019) to calculate the global Moran’s I statistic at multiple lag distances for both of the landscape patterns. I then plotted global Moran’s I vs. distance to create a correlogram and compared my results between landscapes.

Ex. 2: Hotspot analyses (ArcMap), Neighborhood analyses (ArcMap)

First, I performed a non-spatial analysis comparing infection probabilities between (i) landscape patterns (ii) management classes, and (iii) management classes in each of the landscapes. Then, I used the Hotspot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) tool in ArcMap to identify statistically significant hot- and cold-spots of high and low infection probabilities, respectively. I selected points within hot and cold spots and used the Multiple Ring Buffer tool in ArcMap to create distance rings, which I intersected with the management classes to perform a neighborhood analysis. This neighborhood analysis revealed how the proportion of each management class changed with increasing distance from hotspots in order to test whether the management “neighborhood” of trees influenced their probability of infection.

Ex. 3: Network and landscape connectivity analyses (Conefor)

I divided my landscape into three separate stand networks based on their management class. Then, I used the free landscape connectivity software Conefor (Saura and Torné 2009) to analyze the connectivity of each stand based on its position within and role in connecting the network using the Integrative Index of Connectivity (Saura and Rubio 2010). I then assessed the relationship between the connectivity of each stand and infection probabilities of trees within that stand using various summary statistics (e.g., mean, median) to test whether connectivity was related to infection probability.

RESULTS: WHAT DID I PRODUCE?

As my model had not been parameterized by the beginning of this term, I analyzed “dummy” data, where infection spread probabilities were calculated as a decreasing linear function of distance from infected trees. However, the results I produced still provided insights as to the general functioning of the model and factors that will likely influence my results in the full, parameterized model.

I produced both maps and numerical/statistical relationships that describe the patterns of “A” (infection probabilities), the relationship between “A” and “B” (forest management classes), and how/whether “A” and “B” are related via “C” (landscape connectivity and stand networks).

In Exercise 1, I found evidence to support my hypothesis of spatial autocorrelation at small scales in both landscapes and higher autocorrelation and slower decay with distance in the clustered landscape than the random landscape. This was expected because the design of the model calculated probability of infection for each tree as a function of distance from infected trees.

In Exercises 2 and 3, I found little to no evidence to support the hypothesis that either connectivity or neighboring stand management had significant influence on infection probabilities. Because the model that produced the “dummy” data limited infection to ~35 meters from infected trees and harvest and thinning attraction had not been integrated into infection calculations, this result was not surprising. In my full model where spread via insect vectors could span >1,000 m, I expect to see a larger influence of connectivity and neighborhood on infection probabilities.

A critical component of model testing is exploring the “parameter space”, including a range of possible values for each parameter. This is especially for agent-based models where there are complex interactions between many individuals that result in larger-scale patterns that may be emergent and not fully predictable by the simple sum of the parts. In my model, the disease parameters of interest are the factors influencing probability of infection (Fig. 1). In order to understand how the model reacts to changes in those parameters, I will perform a sensitivity analysis, systematically adjusting parameter values one-by-one and comparing the results of each series of model runs under each set of parameter values.

Fig.1. Two of the model parameters that will be systematically adjusted during sensitivity analysis. Tree susceptibility to infection as a function of age (left) and probability of root contact as a function of distance (right) will both likely influence model behavior and the relative levels of infection probability between the three management classes.

This is especially relevant given that in Exercises 1 through 3, I found that the extensively managed plantations had the highest values of infection probability and most of the infection hotspots, likely due to the fact that this management class has the highest [initial] density of trees. For the complete model, I am hypothesizing that the intensive plantations will have the highest infection probabilities because of high frequency of insect-attracting harvest and short rotations that maintain the trees in an age class highly susceptible to infection. In the full model, the extensive plantations will have higher initial density than the intensive plantations but will undergo multiple thinnings, decreasing tree density but attracting vectors, and will be harvested at age 80, thus allowing trees to grow into a less susceptible age class. In this final model, thinning, harvest length, and vector attraction will factor in to the calculation of infection probabilities. My analysis made it clear that even a 1.5 meter difference in spacing resulted in a statistically significant difference for disease transmission, with much higher disease spread in the denser forest. Because the model is highly sensitive to tree spacing, likely because the parameters of my model that relate to distance drop off in sigmoidal or exponential decay patterns, I would hypothesize that changes in the values of parameters that influence the spatial spread of disease (i.e., insect dispersal distance, probability of root contact with distance) and the magnitude of vector attraction after harvest and thinning will determine whether the “extensive” or “intensive” forest management class will ultimately the highest levels of infection probabilities. In addition, the rate of decay of root contact and insect dispersal probabilities will determine whether management and infection within stands influence infection in neighboring stands and the distance and strength of those neighborhood effects. I would like to test this my performing such analyses on the outputs from my sensitivity analyses.

SIGNIFICANCE: WHAT DID I LEARN FROM MY RESULTS? HOW ARE THESE RESULTS IMPORTANT TO SCIENCE? TO RESOURCE MANAGERS?

Ultimately, the significance of this research is to understand the potential threat of black stain root disease in the Pacific Northwest and inform management practices by identifying evidence-based, landscape-scale management strategies that could mitigate BSRD disease issues. While the results of Exercises 1-3 were interesting, they were produced using a model that had not been fully parameterized and thus are not representative of the likely actual model outcomes. Therefore, I was not able to test my hypotheses. That said, this course allowed me to design and develop an analysis to test my hypotheses. The exercises I completed have also provided a deeper understanding of how my model works. Through this process, I have begun to generate additional testable hypotheses regarding model sensitivity to parameters and the relative spread rates of infection in each of the forest management classes. Another key takeaway is the importance of producing many runs with the same landscape configuration and parameter settings to account for stochastic processes in the model. By only analyzing one run for each scenario, there is a chance that the results are not representative of the average behavior of the system or the full range of behaviors possible for those scenarios. For example, with the random landscape configuration, one generated landscape can be highly connected and the next highly fragmented with respect to intensive plantations, and only a series of runs under the same conditions would provide reliable results for interpretation.

WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT… SOFTWARE

(a, b) Arc-Info, Modelbuilder and/or GIS programming in Python

This was my first opportunity to perform statistical analysis in ArcGIS, and I used multiple new tools, including hotspot analysis, multiple ring buffers, and using extensions. Though I did not use Python or Modelbuilder, I realized that doing so will be critical for automating my analyses given the large number of model runs I will be analyzing. While I learned how to program in Python using arcpy in GEOG 562, I used this course to choose the appropriate tools and analyses for my questions and hypotheses rather than automating procedures I may not use again. I would now like to implement my procedures for neighborhood analysis in Python in order to automate and increase the efficiency of my workflow.

(c) Spatial analysis in R

During this course, I learned most about spatial data manipulation in R, since I had limited experience using R with spatial data beforehand. I used R for spatial statistics, data cleaning and management, and conversion between vector and raster data. I also learned about the limitations of R (and my personal limitations) in terms of the challenge of learning how to use packages and their functions when documentation is variable in quality and a wide variety of user-generated packages are available with little reference as to their quality and reliability. For example, for Exercise 2, I had trouble finding an up-to-date and high-quality package for hotspot analysis in R, with raster data or otherwise. However, this method was straightforward in ArcMap once the data were converted from raster to points. For Exercise 1, the only Moran’s I calculation that I was able to perform with my raster data was the “moran” function in the raster package, which does not provide z- or p-values to evaluate the statistical significance of the calculated Moran’s I and requires you to generate your own weights matrices, which is a pain. Using the spdep or ncf packages for this analysis was incredibly slow (though I am not sure why), and the learning curve for spatstat was too steep for me to overcome by the Exercise 1 deadline (but I hope to return to this package in the future).

Reading, manipulating, and converting data: With some trial and error and research into the packages available for working with spatial data in R (especially raster, sp/spdep, and sf), I learned how to quickly and easily convert data between raster and shapefile formats, which was very useful in automating the cleaning and preparation for multiple datasets and creating the inputs for the analyses I want to perform.

(d) Landscape connectivity analyses: I learned that there are a wide variety of metrics available through Fragstats (and landscapemetrics and landscapetools packages in R), however, I was not able to perform my desired stand-scale analysis of connectivity because I could not determine whether it is possible to analyze contiguous stands with the same management class as separate patches (Fragstats considered all contiguous cells in the raster with the same class to be part of the same patch). Instead, I used Conefor, which has an ArcMap extension that allows you to generate a node and connection file from a polygon shapefile, to calculate relatively few but robust and ecologically meaningful connectivity metrics for the stands in my landscape.

WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT… SPATIAL STATISTICS

Correlograms and Moran’s I: For this statistical method, I learned the importance of choosing meaningful lag distances based on the data being analyzed and the process being examined. For example, my correlogram consists of a lot of “noise” with many peaks and troughs due to the empty cells between trees, but I also captured data at the relevant distances. Failure to choose appropriate lag distances means that some autocorrelation could be missed, but analyses of large raster images at a high resolution of lag distances results in very slow processing. In addition, I wanted to compare local vs. global Moran’s I to determine whether infections were sequestered to certain portions of the landscape or spread throughout the entire landscape, but the function for local Moran’s I returned values far outside the -1 to 1 range of the global Moran’s I. As a result, I did not understand how to interpret or compare these values. In addition, global Moran’s I did not tell me where spatial autocorrelation was happening, but the fact that there was spatial autocorrelation led me to perform a…

Hotspot analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*): It became clear that deep conceptual understanding of hypothesized spatial relationships and processes in the data and a clear hypothesis are critical for hotspot analysis. I performed multiple analyses with difference distance weighting to compare the results, and there was a large variation in both the number of points included in hot and cold spots and the landscape area covered by those spots between the different weighting and distance methods. I ended up choosing the inverse squared distance weighting based on my understanding of root transmission and vector dispersal probabilities and because this weighting method was the most conservative (produced the smallest hotspots). The confidence level chosen also resulted in large variation in the size of hotspots. After confirming that there was spatial autocorrelation in infection probabilities, using this method helped me to understand where in the landscape these patterns were occurring and thus how they related to management practices.

Neighborhood analysis: I did not find this method provided much insight in my case, not because of the method itself but because of my data (it just confirmed the landscape pattern that I had designed, clustered vs. random) and my approach (one hotspot and one coldspot point non-randomly selected in each landscape. I also found this method to be tedious in ArcMap, though I would like to automate it, and I later learned about the zonal statistics tool, which can help make this analysis more efficient. In general, it is not clear what statistics I could have used to confirm whether results were significantly different between landscapes, but perhaps this is an issue caused by my own ignorance.

Network/landscape connectivity analyses: I learned that there are a wide variety of tools, programs, and metrics available for these types of analyses. I found the Integrative Index of Connectivity (implemented in Conefor) particularly interesting because of the way it categorizes habitat patches based on multiple attributes in addition to their spatial and topological positions in the landscape. The documentation for this metric is thorough, its ecological significance has been supported in peer-reviewed publications (Saura and Rubio 2010), and it is relatively easy to interpret. In contrast, I found the number of metrics available in Fragstats to be overwhelming especially during the data exploration phase.

REFERENCES

Robert J. Hijmans (2019). raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 2.8-19. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster

Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.

Saura, S. & L. Rubio. 2010. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33: 523-537.

Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Ex. 3: Does black stain spread through landscape networks?

BACKGROUND

For those who have not seen my previous posts, my research involves building a model to simulate the spread of black stain root disease (a disease affecting Douglas-fir trees) in different landscape management scenarios. Each of my landscapes are made up of stands assigned one of three forest management classes. These classes determine the age structure, density, thinning, and harvest of the stands, factors that influence probability of infection.

 QUESTION

Are spatial patterns of infection probabilities for black stain root disease related to spatial patterns of forest management practices via the connectivity structure of the network of stands in my landscape?

TOOLS AND APPROACH

 I decided to look at how landscape connectivity influenced the spatial relationship between forest management practices and infection probabilities. This approach builds off of a network approach based in graph theory (where each component of the landscape is a “node” with “edges” connecting them) and incorporates concepts from landscape ecology regarding distance-dependent ecological processes and the importance of patch characteristics (e.g., area, habitat quality) in the contribution of patches to the connectivity of the landscape. I used ArcMap, R, and a free software called Conefor (Saura and Torné 2009) to perform my analysis.

 DESCRIPTION OF STEPS I FOLLOWED TO COMPLETE THE ANALYSIS

 1. Create a mosaic of the landscape

The landscape in my disease spread model is a torus (left and right sides connected, top and bottom are connected). The raster outputs from my model with stand ID numbers and management classes do not account for this and are represented as a square. Thus, in order to fully consider the connectivity of each stand in the landscape, I needed to tile the landscape in a 3 x 3 grid so that each stand at the edge of the stand map would have the correct spatial position relative to its neighbors beyond the original raster boundary. I did this in R by making copies of the stand ID raster and adjusting their extent. In ArcMap, I then assigned the management classes to each of those stands, converting to polygon, using the “Identity” tool with the polygon for management class, and then using the “Join Field” tool so that every stand with the same unique ID number would have the relevant management class assigned. If I had not done this step, then the position of stands at the edge of the raster in the network would have been misrepresented.

2. Calculate infection probability statistics for each stand

I then needed to relate each stand to the probability of infection of trees in that stand (generated by my model simulation and converted to point data in a previous exercise). In ArcMap, I used the “Spatial Join” tool to calculate statistics for infection probabilities in that stand, because each stand contains many trees. Statistics included the point count, median, mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, range, and sum.

3. Calculate the connectivity of each stand in the network of similarly managed stands in the landscape

3a. For this step, I used the free software Conefor, which calculates a variety of connectivity indices at the individual patch and overall landscape level. First, I used the Conefor extension for ArcMap to generate the input files for the Conefor analysis. The extension generates a “nodes” file for each feature and a “connection” file, which contains the distances between features a binary description of whether or not a link (“edge”) exists between two features. One can set the maximum distance for two features to be linked or generate a probability of connection based on an exponential decay function (built-in feature of Conefor, which is an incredible application). For my analysis, I performed connectivity analyses that only considered features to be linked if (i) they had the same management class and (ii) there were no more than 10 meters of distance between the stand boundaries. Ten meters is about the upper limit for the maximum likely root contact distance between two Douglas-fir trees.

3b. For each management class, I ran the Conefor analysis to calculate multiple metrics. I focused primarily on:

  • Number of links in the network
  • Network components – Each component is a set of connected patches (stands) that is internally connected but has no connection to any other set of patches.
  • Integral Index of Connectivity (IIC) – Essentially, this index gives each patch (stand) a value in terms of its importance for connectivity in the network based on its habitat attributes (e.g., area, habitat quality) and its topological position within the network. For this index, higher values indicate higher importance for connectivity. This is broken into three non-redundant components that sum to the total IIC:
    • IIC intra – connectivity within a patch
    • IIC flux – area-weighted dispersal flux
    • IIC connector – importance of a patch for connecting other patches in the network) (Saura and Rubino 2010)
  1. Analyze the relationship between connectivity metrics and infection probabilities

I reduced the mosaic to include only feature for each stand, eliminating those at the periphery and keeping those in the core. I confirmed that the values were similar for all of the copies of each stand near the center of the mosaic. I then mapped and plotted different combinations of connectivity and infection probability metrics to analyze the relationship for each management class (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Map of IIC connectivity index and mean infection probability for the extensively managed stands.

RESULTS

I generally found no relationship between infection probability and the various metrics of connectivity. As connectivity increased, infection probabilities did not change for any of the metrics I examined (Fig. 2). I would like to analyze this for a series of landscape simulations in the future to see whether patterns emerge. I could also refine the distance used to generate links between patches to reflect the dispersal distance for the insects that vector the disease.

Fig. 2. Plots of infection probability statistics and connectivity metrics for each of the stands in the landscape. Each point represents one stands in the randomly distributed landscape, with extensively managed stands in red, intensively managed stands in blue, and old-growth stands in green.

CRITIQUE OF THE METHOD – What was useful, what was not?

I had originally planned to use the popular landscape ecology application Fragstats (or the R equivalent “landscapemetrics” package), but I ran into issues. As far as I could tell (though I may be incorrect), these options only use raster data and consider one value at a time. What I needed was for the analysis to consider groups of pixels by both their stand ID and their management class, because stands with the same management class are still managed independently. However, landscapemetrics would consider adjacent stands with the same management class to be all one patch. This meant that I could only calculate metrics for the entire landscape or the entire management class, which did not allow me to look at how each patch’s position relative to similarly or differently managed patches related to its probability of infection. In contrast, Conefor is a great application that allows for calculation of a large number of connectivity metrics at both the patch and landscape level.

References

Saura, S. & J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135-139.

Saura, S. & L. Rubio. 2010. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33: 523-537.

Exercise 1: Preparing for Point Pattern Analysis

Exercise 1

The Question in Context

In order to answer my question: are the dolphin sighting data points clustered along the transect surveys or do they have an equal distribution pattern? I need to use point pattern analysis. I am trying visualize where in space dolphins were sighted along the coast of California, specifically from my San Diego sighting area. In this exercise, the variable of interest is dolphin sightings. These are x,y coordinates (point data) indicating the presence of common bottlenose dolphins along a transect. However, these transect data were not recorded and I needed to recreate these lines to my best abilities. This process is more challenging than anticipated, but will prove useful in the short-term view of this class and project and long-term in management ramifications.

The Tools

As part of this exercise, I used ArcMap 10.6, GoogleEarth, qGIS, and Excel. Although I was only intending on importing my Excel data, saved as a .csv file into ArcMap, that was not working, so other tools were necessary. The final goal of this exercise was to complete point-pattern analyses comparing distance along recreated transects to sightings. From there, the sightings would be broken down by year, season, or environmental factor (El Niño versus La Niña years) to look for distributing patterns, specifically if the points were ever clustered or equally distributed at different points in time.

Steps/Outputs/Review of Methods and Analysis

My first step was to clean up my sightings data enough that it could be exported as a .csv and imported as x-y data into ArcMap. However, ArcMap, no matter the transformation equation, seemed to understand the projected or geographic coordinate systems. After many attempts, where my data ended up along the east coast of Africa or in the Gulf of Mexico, I tried a work around; I imported the .csv file into qGIS with the help of a classmate, and then exported that file as a shape file. Then, I was able to import that shape file into ArcMap and select the correct geographic and projected coordinate systems. The points finally appeared off the coast of California.

I then found a shape file of North America with a more accurate coastline, to add to the base map. This step will be important later when I add in track lines, and how the distributions of points along these track lines are related to bathymetry. The bathymetric lines will need to be rasterized and later interpolated.

The next step was the track line recreation. I chose to focus on the San Diego study site. This site has the most data and the most consistently and standardly collected data. The surveys always left the same port of Mission Bay, San Diego, CA traveled north at 5-10km/hr to a specific beach (landmark), then turned around. It is noted on sighting data whether the track line was surveyed on both directions (South to North and North to South), or unidirectional (South to North). Because some data were collected prior to the invention of a GPS and the commercial availability, I have to recreate these track lines. I started trying to use ArcMap to draw the lines but had difficulty. Luckily, after many attempts, it was suggested that I use Google Earth. Here I found a tool to create a survey line where I can mark the edges along the coastline at an approximate distance from shore, and then export that file. It took a while to realize that the file needed to be exported as a .kml and not a .kmz.

Once exported as a .kml, I was able to convert the .kml file to a layer file and then to a shape file in ArcMap. The next step in this is somehow getting all points within one kilometer of the track line (my spatial scale for this part of the project) to associate with that track line. One idea was snapping the points to the line. However, this did not work. I am still stuck here: the major step before I can have my point data with an association to the line and then begin a point pattern analysis in ArcMap and/or R Studio.

Results

Although I do not currently have results of this exercise, fully. I can say for certain, that it has not been without trying, nor am I stopping. I have been brainstorming and milking resources from classmates and teaching assistants about how to associate the sighting data points with the track line to then do this cluster analysis. Hopefully, based on this can be exported to R studio where I can see distributions along the transect. I may be able to do a density-based analysis which would show if different sections along the transect, which I would need to designate and potentially rasterize first, have different densities of points. I would expect the sections to differ seasonally.

Critiques

Although I add in my opinions on usefulness and ease above, I do believe this will be very helpful in analyzing distribution patterns. Right now, it is largely unknown if there are differences in distribution patterns for this population because they move rapidly and at great distances. But, by investigating data from only the San Diego site, I can determine if there are differences in distributions along the transects temporally and spatially. In addition, the total counts of sightings in each location per unit effort will be useful to see the influx to that entire survey area over time.

Contact information: this post was written by Alexa Kownacki, Wildlife Science Ph.D. Student at Oregon State University. Twitter: @lexaKownacki

The Biogeography of Coastal Bottlenose Dolphins off of California, USA between 1981-2016

Background/Description:

Common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), hereafter referred to as bottlenose dolphins, are long-lived, marine mammals that inhabit the coastal and offshore waters of the California Current Ecosystem. Because of their geographical diversity, bottlenose dolphins are divided into many different species and subspecies (Hoelzel, Potter, and Best 1998). Bottlenose dolphins exist in two distinct ecotypes off the west coast of the United States: a coastal (inshore) ecotype and an offshore (island) ecotype. The coastal ecotype inhabits nearshore waters, generally less than 1 km from shore, between Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico and San Francisco, California, USA (Bearzi 2005; Defran and Weller 1999). Less is known about the range of the offshore ecotype , which is broadly defined as more than 2 km offshore off the entire west coast of the USA (Carretta et al. 2016). Current population abundance estimates are 453 coastal individuals and 1,924 offshore individuals (Carretta et al. 2017). The offshore and coastal bottlenose dolphins off of California are genetically distinct (Wells and Scott 1990).

Both ecotypes breed in summer and calve the following summer, which may be thermoregulatory adaptation (Hanson and Defran 1993). These dolphins are crepuscular feeders that predominantly hunt prey in the early morning and late afternoon (Hanson and Defran 1993), which correlates to the movement patterns of their fish prey. Out of 25 prey fish species, surf perches and croakers make up nearly 25% of coastal T. truncatus diet (Hanson and Defran 1993). These fish, unlike T. truncatus, are not federally protected, and neither are their habitats. Therefore, major threats to dolphins and their prey species include habitat degradation, overfishing, and harmful algal blooms (McCabe et al. 2010).

This project aims to better understand that distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the waters off of California, specifically in relation to distance from shore, and how that distance has changed over time.

Data:

This part of the overarching project focuses on understanding the biogeography of coastal bottlenose dolphins. Later stages in the project will require the addition of offshore bottlenose sightings to compare population habitats.

Beginning in 1981, georeferenced sighting data of coastal bottlenose dolphin off the California, USA coast were collected by R.H. Defran and team. The data were provided in the datum, NAD 1983. Small boats less than 10 meters in length were used to collect the majority of the field data, including GPS points, photographs, and biopsy samples. These surveys followed similar tracklines with a specific start and end location, which will be used to calculate the sighting per unit effort. Over the next four decades, varying amounts of data were collected in six different regions (Fig. 1). Coastal T. truncatus sightings from 1981-2015 parallel much of the California land mass, concentrating in specific areas (Fig. 2). Many of the sightings are clustered nearby larger cities due to logistics of port locations. The greater number of coastal dolphin sightings is due to the bias in effort toward proximity to shore and longer study period. All samples were collected under a NOAA-NMFS permit.Additional data required will likely be sourced from publicly-available, long-term data collections, such as ERDDAP or MODIS.

Distance from shore will be calculated in a program such as ArcGIS or R package. These data will be used later in the project to compare to additional static, dynamic, and long-term environmental drivers. These factors will be tested as possible layers to add in mapping and finally estimating population distribution patterns of the dolphins.

Figure 1. Breakdown of coastal bottlenose dolphin sightings by decade. Image source: Alexa Kownacki.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypotheses:

I predict that the coastal bottlenose dolphins will be associated with different bathymetry patterns and appear clustered based on a depth profile via mechanisms such as prey distribution and abundance, nutrient plumes, and predator avoidance.

Approaches:

My objective is to first find a bathymetric layer that covers the coast of the entirety of California, USA to import into ArcMap 10.6. Then I need to interpolate the data to create a smooth surface. Then, I can add my dolphin sighting points and create a way to associate each point with a depth. These depth and point data would be exported to R for further analysis. Once I have extracted these data, I can run a KS-test to compare the shape of distribution based on two different factors, such as points from El Niño years versus La Niña years to see if there is a difference in average sighting depth or more common sighting depths based on the climatic patterns. I am also interested in using the spatial statistic analysis tool, Moran’s I, to see if the sightings are clustered. If so, I would run a cluster analysis to see if the sightings are clustered by depth. If not, then maybe there are other drivers that I can test, such as distance from shore, upwelling index values, or sea surface temperature. Additionally, these patterns would be analyzed over different time scales, such as monthly, seasonally, or decadally.

Expected Outcome:

Ideally, I would produce multiple maps from ArcGIS representing different spatial scales at defined increments, such as by month (all Januaries, all Februaries, etc.), by year or binned time increment (i.e. 1981-1989, 1990-1999), and also potentially grouping based on El Niño or La Niña year. Different symbologies would represent coastal dolphin sightings distances from shore. The maps would visually display seafloor depths in a color spectrum by 10 meter difference. Because the coastlines of California vary in terms of depth profiles, I would expect there to be clusters of sightings at different distances from shore, but similar depth profiles if my hypothesis is true. Also, data with the quantified values of seafloor depth would be associated with each data point (dolphin sighting) for further analysis in R.

Significance:

This project draws upon decades of rich spatiotemporal and biological information of two neighboring long-lived cetacean populations that inhabit contrasting coastal and offshore waters of the California Bight. The coastal ecotype has a strong, positive relationship with distance to shore, in that it is usually sighted within five kilometers, and therefore is in frequent contact with human-related activities. However, patterns of distances to shore over decades, related to habitat type and possibly linked to prey species distribution, or long-term environmental drivers, is largely unknown. By better understanding the distribution and biogeography of these marine mammals, managers can better mitigate the potential effects of humans on the dolphins and see where and when animals may be at higher risk of disturbance.

Preparation:

I have a moderate amount of experience in ArcMap from past coursework (GEOG 560 and 561), as well as practical applications and map-making. I have very little experience in Modelbuilder and Python-based GIS programming. I am becoming more familiar with the R program after two statistics courses and analyzing some of my own preliminary data. I am experienced in image processing in ACDSee, PhotoShop, ImageJ, and other analyses mainly from marine vertebrate data through NOAA Fisheries.

Literature Cited:

Bearzi, Maddalena. 2005. “Aspects of the Ecology and Behaviour of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops Truncatus) in Santa Monica Bay, California.” Journal of Cetacean Research Managemente 7 (1): 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4820976.

Carretta, James V., Kerri Danil, Susan J. Chivers, David W. Weller, David S. Janiger, Michelle Berman-Kowalewski, Keith M. Hernandez, et al. 2016. “Recovery Rates of Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops Truncatus) Carcasses Estimated from Stranding and Survival Rate Data.” Marine Mammal Science 32 (1): 349–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12264.

Carretta, James V, Karin A Forney, Erin M Oleson, David W Weller, Aimee R Lang, Jason Baker, Marcia M Muto, et al. 2017. “U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2016.” NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, no. June. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-SWFSC-5.

Defran, R. H., and David W Weller. 1999. “Occurrence , Distribution , Site Fidelity , and School Size of Bottlenose Dolphins ( Tursiops T R U N C a T U S ) Off San Diego , California.” Marine Mammal Science 15 (April): 366–80.

Hanson, Mark T, and R.H. Defran. 1993. “The Behavior and Feeding Ecology of the Pacific Coast Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops Truncatus.” Aquatic Mammals 19 (3): 127–42.

Hoelzel, A. R., C. W. Potter, and P. B. Best. 1998. “Genetic Differentiation between Parapatric ‘nearshore’ and ‘Offshore’ Populations of the Bottlenose Dolphin.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 265 (1402): 1177–83. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0416.

McCabe, Elizabeth J.Berens, Damon P. Gannon, Nélio B. Barros, and Randall S. Wells. 2010. “Prey Selection by Resident Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops Truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida.” Marine Biology 157 (5): 931–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1371-2.

Wells, Randall S., and Michael D. Scott. 1990. “Estimating Bottlenose Dolphin Population Parameters From Individual Identification and Capture-Release Techniques.” Report International Whaling Commission, no. 12.

——-

Contact information: this post was written by Alexa Kownacki, Wildlife Science Ph.D. Student at Oregon State University. Twitter: @lexaKownacki

 

A stain on the record? Have forest management practices set up PNW landscapes for a black-stain-filled future?

Describe the research question that you are exploring.

I am looking at how forest management practices influence the spread of black stain root disease (BSRD), a fungal root disease that affects Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. While older trees become infected, BSRD primarily causes mortality in younger trees (< 30-35 years old). Management practices (e.g., thinning, harvest) attract insects that carry the disease and are associated with increased BSRD incidence. As forest management practices in the Pacific Northwest change to favor shorter-rotations of Douglas-fir monocultures, the distribution of Douglas-fir age classes is shifting towards younger stands and the frequency of harvest disturbance is increasing across the landscape. Though limited, our present understanding of this disease system indicates that these management trends, as well as the resulting disturbance regime and forest landscape age structure, may be creating favorable conditions for BSRD spread.

In this course, I would like to use spatial analyses to answer the question of whether forest management and the conditions that it creates act as a driver of the spread of black stain root disease. Specifically:

  • How do spatial patterns of forest management practices and the forest stand and landscape conditions that they create relate to spatial patterns of BSRD infection probabilities at the stand and landscape scale?
  • How do spatial patterns of forest management practices relate to landscape connectivity with respect to BSRD by affecting the area of susceptible forest and creating dispersal corridors and/or barriers throughout the landscape?

Example landscape with stands of three different forest management regimes (shades of green) and trees infected by black stain root disease (red). Forgive the 90s-esque graphics… NetLogo, the program I am using to develop and run my model, is powerful but old-school.

Describe the dataset you will be analyzing, including the spatial and temporal resolution and extent.

I will be analyzing the raster outputs of a spatial model that I built in the agent-based modeling program NetLogo (Wilensky 1999). The rasters contain the states of forested landscapes (managed as individual stands) at a given time during the model run. Variables include tree age, presence/absence of trees, management regime, probability of infection, infection status (infected/not infected), and cause of infection (root transmission, vector transmission).

The forested landscapes I am looking at are about 3,000 to 4,000 ha, with each pixel representing a ~1.5 m x 1.5 m area that can occupied by one tree. I run each model for a 300-year time series with 1-year intervals, though raster outputs may be produced at 10-year intervals.

Hypotheses: predict the kinds of patterns you expect to see in your data, and the processes that produce or respond to these patterns.

I hypothesize that landscapes with higher proportions of intensively managed, short-rotation stands will have higher probabilities of BSRD infection at the stand and landscape scales. In landscapes with high proportion of short-rotation stands, there will be large areas of suitable habitat for the pathogen and its vectors, frequent harvest that attracts disease vectors, and greater levels of connectivity for the spread of disease. In landscapes with a large proportion of older forests managed for conservation, I hypothesize that these forests will act as barriers to the spread of BSRD. High connectivity could be evidenced by greater landscape-scale dispersion of infections, whereas low connectivity would lead to a high degree of clustering of infections in the landscape.

I also hypothesize that intensively managed, short-rotation stands will have the highest probabilities of infection, followed by intensively managed, medium-rotation stands, and finally old-growth stands. However, I hypothesize that each stand’s probability of infection will depend not only on its own management but also on the management of neighboring stands and the broader landscape. At some threshold proportion of intensive management in the landscape, I hypothesize that there will be a shift in the scale of the drivers of infection, such that landscape-scale management patterns overtake stand-scale management as a predictor of infection probability.

Approaches: Describe the kinds of analyses you ideally would like to undertake and learn about this term, using your data.

I would like to learn about landscape connectivity analyses and spatial statistics such as clustering/dispersion as well as spatiotemporal analyses to analyze the relationships between discrete disturbance events and disease spread. I would like to learn how to separate the effects of connectivity from the effect of the area of suitable pathogen habitat. I am most interested in using R or Python to analyze my data, and I would like to move away from ESRI programs because of my interest in open-source and free tools for science and the prohibitive cost of ESRI software licenses for independent researchers and organizations with limited financial means.

Expected outcome – What do you want to produce – Maps? Statistical relationships?

My primary interest is to evaluate statistical relationships between spatial patterns of management and disease measures, but I would also like to produce maps to demonstrate model inputs and outputs (i.e., figures for my thesis).

Significance – How is your spatial problem important to science? To resource managers?

From a scientific perspective, this research aims to contribute to the body of research examining relationships between spatial patterns and ecological processes and complex behaviors in ecological systems. This research will examine how the diversity of the landscape age structure and disturbance regimes affect the susceptibility of the landscape to disease, contributing to literature relating diversity and stability in ecological systems. In addition, “neighborhood” and “spillover” effects will be tested by analyzing stand-scale infection probability with respect to the infection probability of neighboring stands and more broadly in the landscape. Analysis of threshold responses to changes in stand- and landscape-scale management patterns and shifts in the scale of disease drivers will contribute to understanding of cross-scale system interactions and emergent properties in the field of complex systems science.

From an applied perspective, the goal of this research is to inform management practices and understand the potential threat of black stain root disease in the Pacific Northwest. This will be achieved by improving understanding of the drivers of BSRD spread at multuiple scales and highlighting priority areas for future research. This project is a first step towards identifying evidence-based, landscape-scale management strategies that could be taken to mitigate BSRD disease issues. In addition, the structure of this model provides a platform for looking at multi-scale interactions between forest management and spatial spread processes. Its use is not restricted to a specific region and could be adapted for other current and emerging disease issues.

Your level of preparation – How much experience do you have with: (a) Arc-Info, (b) Modelbuilder and/or GIS programming in Python, (c) R, (d) image processing, (e) other relevant software

Over the past 5 years, I have worked on and off with all the programs/platforms listed. For some, I have been formally trained, but for others, I have been largely self-taught. However, lack of continuous use has eroded my skills to some degree.

a. I have frequently used ArcInfo for making maps, visualizing data, and processing and analyzing spatial data. However, I do not have a lot of experience with spatial statistics in ArcInfo.

b. Modelbuilder/Python: Last spring, I took GEOG 562 and learned to program in Python, developing a script that used arcpy to prepare and manipulate spatial data for my final project. I felt comfortable programming in Python at that time, but I have not used Python much since the course.

c. I have frequently used R to clean and prepare data, perform simple statistical analyses (ANOVA, linear regression), and create plots. I have taken several workshops on using R for spatial analysis, but I have used rarely used the R packages I learned about outside of those workshops.

d. I have used ENVI to correct, patch, and combine satellite images, and I have performed supervised classifications to create land cover maps. I have worked primarily with LANDSAT images. I have also used CLASlite (an image processing software designed for classifying tropical forest cover).

e. Covered in part d.

References

Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Adam Bouché