Gregor W. Schuurman
National Park Service
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Gregor W. Schuurman.
PLOS ONE | 2015
Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Gregor W. Schuurman; William B. Monahan; Pamela Ziesler
Climate change will affect not only natural and cultural resources within protected areas but also tourism and visitation patterns. The U.S. National Park Service systematically collects data regarding its 270+ million annual recreation visits, and therefore provides an opportunity to examine how human visitation may respond to climate change from the tropics to the polar regions. To assess the relationship between climate and park visitation, we evaluated historical monthly mean air temperature and visitation data (1979–2013) at 340 parks and projected potential future visitation (2041–2060) based on two warming-climate scenarios and two visitation-growth scenarios. For the entire park system a third-order polynomial temperature model explained 69% of the variation in historical visitation trends. Visitation generally increased with increasing average monthly temperature, but decreased strongly with temperatures > 25°C. Linear to polynomial monthly temperature models also explained historical visitation at individual parks (R2 0.12-0.99, mean = 0.79, median = 0.87). Future visitation at almost all parks (95%) may change based on historical temperature, historical visitation, and future temperature projections. Warming-mediated increases in potential visitation are projected for most months in most parks (67–77% of months; range across future scenarios), resulting in future increases in total annual visits across the park system (8–23%) and expansion of the visitation season at individual parks (13–31 days). Although very warm months at some parks may see decreases in future visitation, this potential change represents a relatively small proportion of visitation across the national park system. A changing climate is likely to have cascading and complex effects on protected area visitation, management, and local economies. Results suggest that protected areas and neighboring communities that develop adaptation strategies for these changes may be able to both capitalize on opportunities and minimize detriment related to changing visitation.
Environmental Management | 2016
Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Gregor W. Schuurman; Cat Hawkins Hoffman
Abstract Climate change adaptation is a rapidly evolving field in conservation biology and includes a range of strategies from resisting to actively directing change on the landscape. The term ‘climate change resilience,’ frequently used to characterize adaptation strategies, deserves closer scrutiny because it is ambiguous, often misunderstood, and difficult to apply consistently across disciplines and spatial and temporal scales to support conservation efforts. Current definitions of resilience encompass all aspects of adaptation from resisting and absorbing change to reorganizing and transforming in response to climate change. However, many stakeholders are unfamiliar with this spectrum of definitions and assume the more common meaning of returning to a previous state after a disturbance. Climate change, however, is unrelenting and intensifying, characterized by both directional shifts in baseline conditions and increasing variability in extreme events. This ongoing change means that scientific understanding and management responses must develop concurrently, iteratively, and collaboratively, in a science-management partnership. Divergent concepts of climate change resilience impede cross-jurisdictional adaptation efforts and complicate use of adaptive management frameworks. Climate change adaptation practitioners require clear terminology to articulate management strategies and the inherent tradeoffs involved in adaptation. Language that distinguishes among strategies that seek to resist change, accommodate change, and direct change (i.e., persistence, autonomous change, and directed change) is prerequisite to clear communication about climate change adaptation goals and management intentions in conservation areas.
Current opinion in insect science | 2016
Jessica J. Hellmann; Ralph Grundel; Chris Hoving; Gregor W. Schuurman
As climate change moves insect systems into uncharted territory, more knowledge about insect dynamics and the factors that drive them could enable us to better manage and conserve insect communities. Climate change may also require us to revisit insect management goals and strategies and lead to a new kind of scientific engagement in management decision-making. Here we make five key points about the role of insect science in aiding and crafting management decisions, and we illustrate those points with the monarch butterfly and the Karner blue butterfly, two species undergoing considerable change and facing new management dilemmas. Insect biology has a strong history of engagement in applied problems, and as the impacts of climate change increase, a reimagined ethic of entomology in service of broader society may emerge. We hope to motivate insect biologists to contribute time and effort toward solving the challenges of climate change.
PLOS ONE | 2018
Joanna X. Wu; Chad B. Wilsey; Lotem Taylor; Gregor W. Schuurman
Birds in U.S. national parks find strong protection from many longstanding and pervasive threats, but remain highly exposed to effects of ongoing climate change. To understand how climate change is likely to alter bird communities in parks, we used species distribution models relating North American Breeding Bird Survey (summer) and Audubon Christmas Bird Count (winter) observations to climate data from the early 2000s and projected to 2041–2070 (hereafter, mid-century) under high and low greenhouse gas concentration trajectories, RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. We analyzed climate suitability projections over time for 513 species across 274 national parks, classifying them as improving, worsening, stable, potential colonization, and potential extirpation. U.S. national parks are projected to become increasingly important for birds in the coming decades as potential colonizations exceed extirpations in 62–100% of parks, with an average ratio of potential colonizations to extirpations of 4.1 in winter and 1.4 in summer under RCP8.5. Average species turnover is 23% in both summer and winter under RCP8.5. Species turnover (Bray-Curtis) and potential colonization and extirpation rates are positively correlated with latitude in the contiguous 48 states. Parks in the Midwest and Northeast are expected to see particularly high rates of change. All patterns are more extreme under RCP8.5 than under RCP2.6. Based on the ratio of potential colonization and extirpation, parks were classified into overall trend groups associated with specific climate-informed conservation strategies. Substantial change to bird and ecological communities is anticipated in coming decades, and current thinking suggests managing towards a forward-looking concept of ecological integrity that accepts change and novel ecological conditions, rather than focusing management goals exclusively on maintaining or restoring a static set of historical conditions.
Conservation Letters | 2016
Erik A. Beever; John O'Leary; Claudia Mengelt; Jordan M. West; Susan H. Julius; Nancy Green; Dawn R. Magness; Laura E. Petes; Bruce A. Stein; Adrienne B. Nicotra; Jessica J. Hellmann; Amanda L. Robertson; Michelle D. Staudinger; Andrew A. Rosenberg; Eleanora Babij; Jean Brennan; Gregor W. Schuurman; Gretchen E. Hofmann
Climate Risk Management | 2017
Amy J. Symstad; Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Brian W. Miller; Erika Rowland; Gregor W. Schuurman
Open-File Report | 2017
Amy J. Symstad; Brian W. Miller; Jonathan M. Friedman; Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Andrea Ray; Erika Rowland; Gregor W. Schuurman
Ecosphere | 2017
Brian W. Miller; Amy J. Symstad; Leonardo Frid; Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Gregor W. Schuurman
Natural Resource Report | 2016
Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Gregor W. Schuurman; Amy J. Symstad; Andrea Ray; Jonathan M. Friedman; Brian W. Miller; Erika Rowland
Natural Resource Report | 2016
Nicholas A. Fisichelli; Gregor W. Schuurman; Amy J. Symstad; Andrea Ray; Brian W. Miller; Molly Cross; Erika Rowland