请输入您要查询的百科知识：

　

词条 Ecosystem Management Decision Support
释义

  1. Development partners

  2. Ongoing EMDS development

      Task order 1    Task order 2    Task order 3    Task order 4 and beyond 

  3. Applications {{anchor|apps}}

  4. Citations

  5. External links

The Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) system is an application framework for knowledge-based decision support of ecological analysis and planning at any geographic scale.

EMDS integrates state-of-the-art geographic information system (GIS) as well as logic programming and decision modeling technologies on multiple platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac OS X) to provide decision support for a substantial portion of the adaptive management process of ecosystem management.

EMDS uses Criterium DecisionPlus from InfoHarvest, Inc. and NetWeaver from Rules of Thumb, Inc. as core components. The NetWeaver component performs logic-based evaluation of environmental data, and logically synthesizes evaluations to infer the state of landscape features such as watersheds (e.g., watershed condition). The DecisionPlus component prioritizes landscape features with respect to user-defined management objectives (e.g., watershed restoration), using summarized outputs from NetWeaver as well as additional logistical information considered important to the decision maker(s). See the #Applications section below for a current list of published papers by application area.

Several citations provide extensive background on the EMDS system and its potential applications.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

EMDS 5.0 was released in October 2014.

Development partners

EMDS was originally developed by the United States Forest Service. The Redlands Institute of the University of Redlands developed and maintained EMDS from 2005 until mid 2014 when the university closed the Redlands Institute. Support and development of EMDS was then transferred to Mountain View Business Group where one of the principal programmers was able to find a new home. Development continues with support from Rules of Thumb, Inc. and InfoHarvest, Inc.. Logic Programming Associates (London, UK) joined the EMDS development group in 2013, bringing their expertise in Prolog programming into the mix. An area of immediate interest for further research and development based on this new expertise is the possibility for implementing natural language generators in EMDS that can interact with the analytical products and maps from NetWeaver and CDP, and render all of this complexity into easy-to-understand executive summaries. The most recent addition to the EMDS development group is BayesFusion, LLC, which brings a customized version of its SMILE engine for running GeNIe Bayesian network applications to the EMDS environment.

Ongoing EMDS development

The Forest Service continues development of EMDS under a contract with Mountain View Business Group. Below, new development is described in terms of a series of task orders. Task orders 1 to 3 are currently approved and funded.

Task order 1

Completed December 2015.

  • Adds multi-processor/threaded support for more efficient processing of Netweaver and other EMDS processes.
  • Adds ArcMap 10.3 support.
  • Adds the ability to execute ModelBuilder and Python scripts within EMDS so system can track geoprocessing done on projects, and users don't need to leave EMDS to do further analysis and processing. This allows EMDS to track the geoprocessing that has been done outside of EMDS in the past.
  • Creation of a new EMDS edition as an add-in to the open source GIS MapWindow. This is full 64-bit, able to run tasks across multiple cores, and is functionally on par with the ArcGIS 10.3 ArcMap add-in. Coming very soon: MapWindow implementations of EMDS for Apple OSX, Linux, and a streamed version (i.e., can be run from an iPad). The new open source GIS engine version will become the template for a subsequent web/mobile client.

Task order 2

Initiated December 2015. Expected completion is July 2016.

  • Publish EMDS 5 assessment products to a web service.
  • Allow web users to invoke, and interactively view, the models and data underlying assessments, and examine the tradeoffs and contributions analysis for decision model weights for an analysis area.
  • Expand geodatabase capacity to handle up to 2 million rows by 500 columns. Implemented as of December 2015.
  • Support for multiple, simultaneous assessments and hierarchical assessments, to allow for intelligent spatial aggregation from smaller to larger regions.
  • Integrate strategic and tactical analyses to give an accurate current state and multiple what-if analyses from applying tactical actions to determine their effects on ecosystem state.

Task order 3

Scheduled to start July 2016. Expected completion February 2017.

  • Support for integrated assessments across a region.
  • Implement unlimited redo/undo functionality within projects (i.e., backtrack and pivot).
  • Create initial workflow library for storage and tracking of workflows.
  • Port decision engine and its interface to .net to enhance stability, speed, and reusability of the system. This completes the conversion of existing components to .net.

Task order 4 and beyond

Scheduled to start February 2017. Expected completion September 2019.

A series of additional task orders over this period complete the transformation of EMDS to an enterprise system with all functionality delivered via web services. Major enhancements to functionality in these stages include automation of geoprocessing tasks and analytic steps via a workflow engine and interface, and comprehensive provenance tracking of projects.

Applications {{anchor|apps}}

  1. EMDS, the book (March 2014).&91;14&93;
  2. Carbon sequestration&91;15&93;
  3. Conservation&91;16&93;&91;17&93;&91;18&93;&91;19&93;&91;20&93;
  4. Design and siting of ecological reserves&91;21&93;&91;22&93;&91;23&93;
  5. Ecosystem services&91;24&93;
  6. Ecosystem sustainability&91;25&93;&91;26&93;&91;27&93;&91;28&93;
  7. Forest management&91;29&93;
  8. Geodesign &91;30&93;
  9. Hydrology&91;31&93;
  10. Invasive species&91;32&93;
  11. Land classification&91;33&93;&91;34&93;&91;35&93;
  12. Landscape evaluation&91;36&93;
  13. Landscape restoration&91;37&93;&91;38&93;&91;39&93;&91;40&93;&91;41&93;&91;42&93;&91;43&93;&91;44&93;&91;45&93;&91;46&93; &91;47&93;&91;48&93;&91;49&93;
  14. Pollution&91;50&93;&91;51&93;&91;52&93;&91;53&93;&91;54&93;&91;55&93;
  15. Social issues in natural resource management&91;56&93;
  16. Soil impacts&91;57&93;
  17. Urban growth and development&91;58&93;&91;59&93;&91;60&93;
  18. Watershed analysis&91;61&93;&91;62&93;&91;63&93;&91;64&93;&91;65&93;&91;66&93;&91;67&93;&91;68&93;&91;69&93;&91;70&93;
  19. Wetlands management&91;71&93;
  20. Wildlife habitat management&91;72&93;&91;73&93;&91;74&93;&91;75&93;&91;76&93;&91;77&93;&91;78&93;
  21. Wildland fire danger&91;79&93;&91;80&93;&91;81&93;&91;82&93;&91;83&93;
  22. Wildland fire suppression&91;84&93;

Citations

1. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2001a. Using a logic framework to assess forest ecosystem sustainability. Journal of Forestry 99:26-30. [https://app.box.com/s/ldt37vswws0wygpqn4p4 PDF]
2. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2001b. Fuzzy logic knowledge bases in integrated landscape assessment: examples and possibilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-521. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p. PDF
3. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2002a. Landscape evaluation and planning with EMDS 3.0. 2002 ESRI User Conference. San Diego, CA. July 9–12, 2002. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. [https://app.box.com/s/pcync6fbb1jm5vc9arfd PDF]
4. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2002b. Logic models as frameworks for thinking about compatibility. Pages 215-224 in Johnson, D.; Haynes, R., eds. Proceedings of the Wood Compatibility Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. [https://app.box.com/s/lxieh5209qi1gx2dbmz9 PDF]
5. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2003. A logic approach to design specifications for integrated application of diverse models in forest ecosystem analysis. Pages 379-385 in: Amaro, A., Reed, D. and Soares, P. (eds). Modelling Forest Systems. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
6. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2005b. Integrated decision support for sustainable forest management in the United States: fact or fiction? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 49:6-23. [https://app.box.com/s/rsradciq9mp9bx9v5ckn PDF]
7. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2005c. EMDS 3.0: A Modeling Framework for Coping with Complexity in Environmental Assessment and Planning [https://app.box.com/s/8i8j62wn4cm56569o7dc PDF]
8. ^Reynolds, K.M., and P.F. Hessburg. 2014. An overview of the Ecosystem Management Decision-Support system. Chapter 1 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/qxcizuiil9xs4h99654a PDF]
9. ^Saunders, M.C, and B.J. Miller. 2014 NetWeaver. Chapter 2 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/goc12t7vrha1tg0e3k5z PDF]
10. ^Murphy, P.J. 2014. Criterium DecisionPlus. Chapter 3 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [ PDF]
11. ^Paplanus, S., B. Miller, P. Murphy, K. Reynolds, and M.Saunders. 2014. EMDS 5.0 and Beyond. Chapter 13 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/enae59gecz8lpa3vru11 PDF]
12. ^Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron. 2014. Synthesis and new directions. Chapter 14 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/2z9m6v56ua8vttrjhpkv PDF]
13. ^Reynolds, K., S. Paplanus, B. Miller, and P. Murphy. 2015. Design features behind success of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System and future development. Forests 6:27-46. [https://app.box.com/s/7sive71irjgkn8jnmm1z PDF]
14. ^Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). 2014. Making Transparent Environmental Management Decisions: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://www.springer.com/environment/environmental+management/book/978-3-642-31999-0 Available online]
15. ^Wang, J., J. Chen, W. Ju, and M. Li. 2010. IA-SDSS: A GIS-based land use decision support system with consideration of carbon sequestration. Environmental Modelling & Software 25: 539–553. [https://app.box.com/s/vpj2t0e9dqltj562s786 PDF]
16. ^Manzuli, A.G. 2005. Knowledge-based monitoring and evaluation system of land Use: assessing the ecosystem conservation status in the influence area of a gas pipeline in Bolivia. Doctoral dissertation. Göttingen: Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultäten der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. [https://app.box.com/s/vnc1es9vkuho7atg1ci9 PDF]
17. ^White, M.D., Heilman, G.E. Jr., and Stallcup, J.E. 2005. Science assessment for the Sierra Checkerboard Initiative {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725192559/http://consbio.org/what-we-do/science-assessment-for-the-sierra-checkerboard-2/science-assessment-for-the-sierra-checkerboard-3/science-assessment-for-the-sierra-checkerboard-2?searchterm=checker |date=2011-07-25 }}. Conservation Biology Institute, Encinitas, CA.
18. ^Humphries, H.C., P.S. Bourgeron, and K.M. Reynolds. 2008. Suitability for conservation as a criterion in regional conservation network selection. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 467-492.online {{webarchive|url=https://archive.is/20130202221644/http://springerlink.com/content/y711554116u4131v/ |date=2013-02-02 }}
19. ^Staus, N.L., J.R. Strittholt, and D.A. Dellasala. 2010. Evaluating areas of high conservation value in Western Oregon with a decision-support model. Conservation Biology 24: 711–720. [https://app.box.com/s/khejpqrt70g2sqrxtosn PDF]
20. ^White, M.D., and J.R. Strittholt. 2014. Forest conservation planning. Chapter 9 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/bb2g1s3m2phmepjv0r8i PDF]
21. ^Bourgeron, P.S., H.C. Humphries, and K.M. Reynolds. 2003. Conducting large-scale conservation evaluation and conservation area selection using a knowledge-based system and GIS framework. In: Parks, BO, Clarke KM, Crane MP, editors. 2003. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling: Problems, Prospectus, and Needs for Research. [CD-ROM, {{ISBN|0-9743307-0-1}}]. GIS/EM4 Conference; 2000 Sep 2-8; The Banff Centre, Banff, (AB) Canada. [Jointly published] Boulder: University of Colorado - Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Denver: US Geologic Survey - Center for Biological Informatics, and Boulder: NOAA National Geophysical Data Center - Ecosystem Informatics. [https://app.box.com/s/ik0bk2f0b6f12e5nqt55 PDF]
22. ^Stoms, D.M., McDonald, J.M., and Davis, F.W. 2002. Fuzzy Assessment of Land Suitability for Scientific Research Reserves. Environmental Management 29:545-558. [https://app.box.com/s/uat3j92shshxarv553d6 PDF]
23. ^Stoms, D.M. 2014. Ecological research reserve planning. Chapter 8 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/jvyss0ylheqo11gt8fxk PDF]
24. ^Marto, M.,IK.M. Reynolds, J.G. Borges, V.A. Bushenkov, and S. Marques. 2018. Combining decision support approaches for optimizing the selection of bundles of ecosystem services. Forests 9: 438-451. [https://app.box.com/s/ro4yyd0ezcwqvs9xy43yv7iyxegzn4rx PDF]
25. ^Reynolds, K.M., Johnson, K.N.; Gordon, S.N. 2003. The science/policy interface in logic‑based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability. Forest Policy and Economics 5:433-446. [https://app.box.com/s/xrk3158iok3dq4do714f PDF]
26. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2005a. Decision support for evaluating the U.S. national criteria and indicators for forest ecosystem sustainability. In: Aguirre-Bravo, Celedonio, et al. Eds. Monitoring Science and Technology Symposium: Unifying Knowledge for Sustainability in the Western Hemisphere; 2004 September 20–24; Denver, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-37CD. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Published on CD-ROM. [https://app.box.com/s/lqjsiibq34avjg1i4p6f PDF]
27. ^Reynolds, K.M., S.N. Gordon, and K.N. Johnson. 2008. Using logic to evaluate forest ecosystem sustainability. Forest Criteria and Indicators Analytical Framework and Report Workshop. 18–21 May 2008, Joensuu, Finland. Gen. Tech Rep. WO-GTR-81.[https://app.box.com/s/yqfgn2ewjf6iv3b90795 PDF]
28. ^Jensen, M., K. Reynolds, U. Langner, and M. Hart. 2009. Application of logic and decision models in sustainable ecosystem management. 2009. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Waikoloa, Hawaii. 5–8 January 2009. [https://app.box.com/s/atgvz8d3jjrqgqncr92y PDF]
29. ^ChiChuan, C. and L. HunYeu. 2000. Ecosystem management decision support system (I): planning and integration of a geographic database (Chinese with English summary). Taiwan Journal of Forest Science 15: 125-135.
30. ^Reynolds, K., P. Murphy, and S. Paplanus. 2017. Toward geodesign for watershed restoration on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Pacific Northwest, USA. Sustainability 9: 678-697. [https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55291 PDF]
31. ^Londono, O.M.C, A. Romanelli, M. Lourdes Lima, H.E. Massone, and D.E. Martínez. 2016. Fuzzy logic-based assessment for mapping potential infiltration areas in low-gradient watersheds. J. Environmental Management 176: 101-111. [https://app.box.com/s/b8vma5dkgbh8uuwqj9cmndybht15bk52 PDF]
32. ^Povak, N.A., P.F. Hessburg, C.P. Giardina, R.A. MacKenzie, K.M. Reynolds, C. Heider, E. Salminen, and R.B. Salter. 2017. A Watershed decision support tool for managing invasive species on Hawaii Island, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 400: 300-320. [https://app.box.com/s/dzw2wnv8hp1j14ozyrryzzrdhixk0x6s PDF]
33. ^Cheng, C.-C. 2004. Chapter 2. Pages 94–104 in T. Partap, ed. Evolving sustainable production systems in sloping upland areas: land classification issues and options. Tokyo: Asian Productivity. [https://app.box.com/s/up46ax63nrr2nctvuygo PDF]
34. ^Wang, S.-F., Y.-K. Chen, and C.-C. Cheng. 2004a. Establishment and application of forest ecosystem management decision support system. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 52: 41-52. [https://app.box.com/s/iamvwvtxtwkmfweyaax0 PDF] (in Chinese)
35. ^Ray, D., K. Reynolds, J. Slade, and S. Hodge. 1998. A spatial solution to Ecological Site Classification for British Forestry using Ecosystem Management Decision Support. Proceedings of Third International Conference on GeoComputation Conference. Bristol, UK. September 17–19, 1998. Online
36. ^Pechanec, V., J. Brus, H. Kilianová, and I. Machar. 2015.Decision support tool for the evaluation of landscapes. Ecological Informatics 30: 305-308. [https://app.box.com/s/h6xxzwuxxuqwb4dta844v5lml18tlm98 PDF]
37. ^Hessburg, P. F. Reynolds, K. M., Salter, R. B., and Richmond, M. B. 2004. Using a decision support system to estimate departures of present forest landscape patterns from historical conditions: An example from the Inland Northwest Region of the United States. Chapter 12, In: Perera, A.H., L.J. Buse, and M.G. Weber, eds. Emulating Natural Forest Landscape Disturbances: Concepts and Applications. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. [https://app.box.com/s/zgfkuyqnup9imo4wlsgh PDF]
38. ^Reynolds, K.M., and Hessburg, P.F. 2005. Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management 207:263-278. [https://app.box.com/s/brh2vahlwptuq5h4ac6 PDF]
39. ^Stolle, L., C. Lingnau, ande J.E. Arce. 2007. Mapeamento da fragilidade ambiental em áreas de plantios florestais. Pages 1871–1873 in Anais XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Florianópolis, Brasil, 21-26 abril 2007, INPE. [https://app.box.com/s/c2x5ft90pgxjbu0vlpj9 PDF] (in Portuguese)
40. ^Hessburg, P.F., K.M. Reynolds, R.B. Salter, J.D. Dickinson, W.L. Gaines, and R.J. Harrod. 2013. Landscape Evaluation for Restoration Planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, USA. Sustainability 5: 805-840. [https://app.box.com/s/zlu8ayc38gz6ly75zm9c PDF]
41. ^Bourgeron, B., H. Humphries, C. Fisher, B. Bollenbacher, and K. Reynolds. 2014. The integrated restoration and protection strategy of USDA Forest Service Region 1: A road map to improved planning. Chapter 5 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/9xoehpg3inec7cvrn0dw PDF]
42. ^Hessburg, P.F., R.B. Salter, K.M. Reynolds, J.D. Dickinson, W.L. Gaines, and R.J. Harrod. 2014. Landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Chapter 7 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/ngp3rrnje3hn2u7xnisl PDF]
43. ^O’Callaghan, Joan. 2014. Restoration Planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest: Prescriptions for Resilient Landscapes. PNW Station Science Findings 162. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 pp. [https://app.box.com/s/12maylie6pq36h2n8f4x PDF]
44. ^Bollenbacher, B.L. R.T. Graham, and K.M. Reynolds. 2014. Regional Forest Landscape Restoration Priorities: Integrating Historical Conditions and an Uncertain Future in the Northern Rocky Mountains. J. For. 112: 474-483. [https://app.box.com/s/qti0ay4apd8n1xj7ls2r PDF]
45. ^Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. 2012 The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape resiliency. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 118 p. [https://app.box.com/s/0teyk8mu3kn90cga5f1cq2dtgrnxn5lv PDF]
46. ^Reynolds, K., B. Bollenbacher, C. Fisher, M. Hart, M. Manning, E. Henderson, and B. Sims. 2016. Decision support for the integrated restoration and protection strategy of Forest Service Region 1. FS-1031. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Published on DVD. Online
47. ^Higgins, K., B. Randle, K. Rauscher, R. Reinlasoder, and M. Webb. 2017. Snoqualmie Valley Agricultural Production District riparian restoration and agriculture partnership building: reach scale plan. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, water and land resources Division: Seattle, WA. [https://app.box.com/s/67nvwmhg095ee5cydcig7ks2qomvyolv PDF]
48. ^Cleland, D., K. Reynolds, R. Vaughan, B. Schrader, H. Li, and L. Laing. 2017. Terrestrial condition assessment for national forests of the USDA Forest Service in the continental US. Sustainability 9: 2144-2163. [https://app.box.com/s/8l3uixwb42r4tkkra0gtq130s30gpdgn PDF] or [https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112144 Online]
49. ^Cannon, J., R. Hickey, and W. Gaines. 2018. Using GIS and the Ecosystem Management Decision Support Tool for Forest Management on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington State. Journal of Forestry 116: 460-472. [https://app.box.com/s/ru7n8bih2ssdgmki737s6r79wl7f9vef PDF]
50. ^Lima, M.L., A. Romanelli, H.E. Massone. 2013. Decision support model for assessing aquifer pollution hazard and prioritizing groundwater resources management in the wet Pampa plain, Argentina. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 185: 5125-5139. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232230935_Decision_support_model_for_assessing_aquifer_pollution_hazard_and_prioritizing_groundwater_resources_management_in_the_wet_Pampa_plain_Argentina Online]
51. ^Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, T. Sullivan, N. Povak, T. McDonnell, B. Cosby, and W. Jackson. 2012. Spatial decision support for assessing impacts of atmospheric sulfur deposition on aquatic ecosystems in the Southern Appalachian Region. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences. 4–7 January 2012, Maui, Hawaii. [https://app.box.com/s/cjdzqwwwe1vm2yz0dtig PDF]
52. ^Povak, N.A., P.F. Hessburg, K.M. Reynolds, T.J. Sullivan, T.C. McDonnell. 2013. Hurdle modeling to predict biogeochemical and climatic controls on streamwater acidity in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. Water Resources Research 49: 1-16. [https://app.box.com/s/li4sh8diza899ahdu2i PDF]
53. ^Povak, N.A., P.F. Hessburg, T.C. McDonnell, K.M. Reynolds, T.J. Sullivan, R. B. Salter, and B.J. Cosby. 2014. Machine learning and linear regression models to predict catchment-level base cation weathering rates across the southern Appalachian Mountain region, USA, Water Resources Research 50: 2798–2814. [https://app.box.com/s/avxxagts9sdhqn8chnit PDF]
54. ^McDonnell, T.C., T.J. Sullivan, P.F. Hessburg, K.M. Reynolds, N.A. Povak, B.J. Cosby, W. Jackson, and R.B. Salter. 2014. Steady-state sulfur critical loads and exceedances for protection of aquatic ecosystems in the US southern Appalachian Mountains. J. Environ. Manage. 146: 407-419. [https://app.box.com/s/bf8z6xv5kh1sdrxzvg56 PDF]
55. ^Hessburg, P., Povak, N., Reynolds, K., and N. Vizcarra. 2015. Sour streams in Appalachia: mapping nature’s buffer against sulfur deposition. PNW Science Findings 175. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. [https://app.box.com/s/wl3c7esmtonatvm5ld6fmbd0wc8mpqer PDF]
56. ^Reynolds, K.M. 2002c. Social acceptability of natural resource decision-making processes. Pages 245-252 in Johnson, D.; Haynes, R., eds. Proceedings of the Wood Compatibility Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. [https://app.box.com/s/3geyhykc5wp90ypexrj4 PDF]
57. ^Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Miller, and R.T. Meurisse. 2011. Evaluating soil risks associated with severe wildfire and ground-based logging. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-840. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. PDF
58. ^Johnston, R.A., D.R. Shabazian, and S. Gao. 2002. UPlan, a versatile urban growth model for transportation planning. Transportation Research Record 1831: 202-209. [https://app.box.com/s/vt43etkt1mc13wigju9m PDF]
59. ^Puente, C.R., I.F. Diego, J.J. Ortiz Santa María. A.P. Hernando, and P.z de Arróyabe Hernáez. 2007. The development of a new methodology based on GIS and fuzzy logic to locate sustainable industrial areas. 10th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Aalborg University, Denmark. [https://app.box.com/s/i6enake81spwrsl0ffi5 PDF]
60. ^Ruiz, C. 2014. Planning for Urban Growth and Sustainable Development. Chapter 11 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/x957gohilntcgttn8u7h PDF]
61. ^Bleier, C., Downie, S., Cannata, S., Henly, R., Walker, R., Keithley, C., Scruggs, M.; Custis, K., Clements, J. and R. Klamt. 2003. North Coast Watershed Assessment Program Methods Manual. California Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California. 191 pages. [https://app.box.com/s/46e3s2hultqtj4tros90 PDF]
62. ^Dai, J.J., S. Lorenzato, and D.M. Rocke 2004. A knowledge-based model of watershed assessment for sediment. Environmental Modelling & Software 19: 423–433. [https://app.box.com/s/za8ydhk2ubrsk4ptncr8 PDF]
63. ^Gallo, Kirsten; Lanigan, Steven H.; Eldred, Peter; Gordon, Sean N.; Moyer, Chris. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition of watersheds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 133 p. Download page for PDF - in five parts
64. ^Gordon, S., and Gallo, K. 2011. Structuring expert input for a knowledge-based approach to watershed condition assessment for the Northwest Forest Plan, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 172(1): 643-661. [https://app.box.com/s/jx6m7vm6gayoerzmpyz4 PDF]
65. ^Reeves, Gordon, H.; Hohler, David B.; Larsen, David P.; Busch, David E.; Kratz, Kim; Reynolds, Keith; Stein, Karl F.; Atzet, Thomas; Hays, Polly; Tehan, Michael. 2003. Aquatic and riparian effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p. PDF
66. ^Reynolds, K.M.; Peets, S. 2001. Integrated assessment and priorities for protection and restoration of watersheds. Proceedings of the IUFRO 4.11 conference on forest biometry, modeling and information science. 26–29 June 2001, Greenwich, UK. [https://app.box.com/s/prtv0811zflk6n0kwc5o PDF]
67. ^Reynolds, K.M., Jensen, M., Andreasen, J., and Goodman, I. 2000. Knowledge-based assessment of watershed condition. Comput Electron Agr 27:315–334. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1699(00)00090-9 online]
68. ^Walker,R., C. Keithley, R. Henly, S. Downie, and S. Cannata. 2007. Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) applied to watershed assessment on California’s north coast. Pages 25-34 in Standiford, R.B., G.A. Giusti, Y. Valachovic, W.J. Zielinski, and M.J. Furniss (eds.) Proceedings of the Redwood Region Forest Science Symposium: What Does the Future Hold? 15–17 March 2004, Rohnert Park, California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-194. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 553 p. [https://app.box.com/s/lj29chx1b4g2lpdgvlk9 PDF]
69. ^Gordon, S.N. 2014. Use of EMDS in Conservation and Management Planning for Watersheds. Chapter 4 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/cp1fny58zpe092asr000 PDF]
70. ^Reynolds, K.M., P.J. Murphy, and Steven Paplanus. 2017. Toward geodesign for watershed restoration on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Pacific Northwest, USA. Sustainability 9: 678. [https://app.box.com/s/ybmh5chi7khgevnfkx8t5r9zlfkyhuhu PDF]
71. ^Janssen, R., H. Goosena, M.L. Verhoevenb, J.T.A. Verhoevenb, A.Q.A. Omtzigta and E. Maltby. 2005. Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environmental Modelling and Software 30: 215-229. [https://app.box.com/s/30dm5opt62vtly349pbk PDF]
72. ^Girvetz, E., and Shilling, F. 2003. Decision Support for Road System Analysis and Modification on the Tahoe National Forest. Environmental Management 32:218-233. [https://app.box.com/s/ijchyl50shuicprf9xcx PDF]
73. ^Heaton, J.S., K.E. Nussear, T.C. Esque, R.D. Inman, F.M. Davenport, T.E. Leuteritz, P.A. Medica, N.W. Strout, P.A. Burgess, and L. Benvenuti. 2008. Spatially explicit decision support for selecting translocation areas for Mojave desert tortoises. Biodiversity Conservation 17:575–590. [https://app.box.com/s/yipbk074nv9mv2pz495e PDF]
74. ^Leuteritz, Thomas E.J. 2006. Tortoises on the march: modeling and GIS help relocate a threatened species. GeoWorld, May 2006.
75. ^Redlands Institute Decision Support Team. 2004. Desert Tortoise habitat potential knowledge base. Redlands Institute, Redlands, CA. 120 pp. [https://app.box.com/s/uyiv82hddna5lbk1hein PDF]
76. ^Wang, S.-F., C.-C. Cheng, C.-C. Chang. 2004b. Applying Ecosystem Management Decision Support System on wildlife habitat suitability assessment. Jour. Exp. For. Nat. Taiwan Univ. 19: 69-76. [https://app.box.com/s/1uvzc8vpdct4f3r8jegb PDF] (in Chinese)
77. ^Gordon, S.N., H. McPherson, L. Dickson, J. Halofsky, C. Snyder, and A.W. Brodie. 2014. Wildlife Habitat Management. Chapter 10 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/eqxomgshqd89on0bplwg PDF]
78. ^Wainwright, T.C., P.W. Lawson, G.H. Reeves, L.A. Weitkamp, H.A. Stout, and JS. Mills. 2014. Measuring Biological Sustainability via a Decision Support System: Experiences with Oregon Coast Coho Salmon. Chapter 12 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/l1y946iuu8g699jm34t4 PDF]
79. ^Hessburg, P., Reynolds, K., Keane, R., James, K., Salter, R. 2008. Evaluating wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 247:1-17. [https://app.box.com/s/3fgucasapw20c5712v9j PDF]
80. ^Gollnick-Waid, K., S. Goodman, B. Yohn, J. Wallace, K. VanHemelryck, and G. Barnes. 2009. Ecosystem Management and Decision Support, Summary of Fiscal Year 2009 Results, Prepared for the National Interagency Fuels Coordination Group. Boise, ID: US Department of the Interior. 28 p.
81. ^Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Keane, and J.P. Menakis. 2009. Allocating fuel-treatment budgets: recent federal experience with decision support. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 2373–2381. PDF
82. ^Hessburg, P. F., K.M. Reynolds, R.E. Keane, K.M. James, R.B. Salter. 2010. Evaluating wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments. Pages 329-352 in: Pye, J.M., H.M. Rauscher, Y. Sands, D.C. Lee, and J.S. Beatty, tech. eds. Advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-802. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research Stations. PDF
83. ^Keane, R.E., J. Menakis, P. Hessburg, K. Reynolds, and J. Dickinson. 2014. Evaluating Wildland fire hazard and risk for fire management applications. Chapter 6 in Reynolds, K.M., P.F. Hessburg, and P.S. Bourgeron (eds). Decision Support for Environmental Management: Applications of the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System. Berlin: Springer. [https://app.box.com/s/xi7halw4r81814nda5f1 PDF]
84. ^Gonzalez-Olabarria, J.R., K.M. Reynolds, A. Larrañaga, E. Busquets, and M. Pique. 2019. Strategic and tactical planning to improve suppression efforts against large forest fires in the Catalonia region of Spain. Forest Ecology and management 432: 612-622. [https://app.box.com/s/2k6sv87nucf3kpk6lum8b9vn2wk7ap6u PDF]

External links

  • EMDS Homepage
  • Rules of Thumb, Inc.
  • InfoHarvest, Inc.
  • Logic Programming Associates
  • [https://www.bayesfusion.com/ BayesFusion LLC]
  • EMDS talk at 2010 GeoDesign Summit
  • [https://tranxfer.natureserve.org/download/longterm/ebm%20tools/EMDS%20Webinar%2030Mar11/2011-03-30%2014.03%20Demonstration%20of%20EMDS%20by%20Keith%20Reynolds%20of%20the%20US%20Forest%20Service.wmv EMDS webinar presented by EBM Tools]

1 : GIS software
随便看

　

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

　

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间：2024/9/21 12:31:44