Final Thoughts

            As the ecosystem ecology course comes to a close, I am amazed at how much I have learned. I entered this course without the physics, GIS, and advanced bio/geo/chemistry requirements that were posted on the syllabus. It was intimidating to say the least. The first Dinamica assignment seemed like a foreign language and I was doubtful in my ability to pick up the new skill. I stuck with the class because the environmentalist in me was not satisfied with sitting around in circles and discussing rooftop gardens. I find it necessary to know and understand the cycles and endless functions of ecosystems, if I am going to effectively defend and protect them in the future.

            My interest in community gardens has proven to be a prime example of Integrated Natural Resource studies. I was drawn to the INR major without realizing how great it really is for me. From qualitative research interviewing community garden participants all the way to GIS modeling for finding new areas for community gardens; I have explored many ways of promoting this one form of sustainability. It feels good to be an ecologist and an advocate, someone who can legitimize the claims they stand for.

            As someone who is optimistic, hopeful, almost idealistic, it becomes crucial to ground myself in reality. I am graduating in a couple weeks and I am constantly wondering how will I make an impact on the world? How can I translate all I learned in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources into applicable work? With an integrated major, a love for ecology, and a passion for the people that inhabit this planet, the options are endless.

            Ecosystem ecology provides a concrete opportunity to make a difference. Programs, like Dinamica, allow for people around the world to manage their environments for the best environmental practices and the optimal social equity. I am so happy I learned even a little bit about computer modeling, and I am pleased with the skills I have gained.

            I want to thank Gillian Galford for leading me through this challenging course. Also, thanks Tom Hudspeth and Eric Gottesman for being the two people who read my blog. I may even keep up with this past graduation as I am working in the forests performing research for William Keeton this summer. Ecosystem ecology is a theme that will be with me forever, so the blog will still be relevant.

As far as plans for after the summer, you’ll have to stay posted and feel free to shoot me emails with job opportunities: aviva.j.gottesman@gmail.com

Dataset Dreamin

            At this point in my modeling project on community gardens in Burlington, I am waiting on data from the Chittenden County GIS department.  Once I receive the files, I will convert them to Rasters so I can use them in my Dinamica Model. I have gone through the layers of data that Chittenden County provided on a map viewer online, and determined the datasets that are needed. These can be found below.

Dwelling Unit Per Square Mile from http://ccrpcvt.org/

Bus line data

Holistic Carbon Management Approaches

          This summer I will be on a field crew for UVM professor William Keeton (and our very own Sarah Ford-thank you thank you) and so I decided to learn more about his research this week. I watched a video of Professor Keeton (Bill) give a presentation at a Gund Tea (Gund Institute of Environmental Economics). The lecture was titled,  "Toward a Holistic Carbon Management Approach". Bill explained that deforestation in the tropics accounts for almost 15% of global green house gas emissions. Forest regrowth compensates for some of the loss through requestering the carbon, making global forests a net carbon sink (taking in more carbon then emitting). In the lecture, Bill asks “how can we enhance the strength of forests as a carbon sink?” Can active forest management promote carbon sinks and if so, what type of management?

            The three possibilities of management for carbon sinks include: passive management, reduced harvesting intensity, and intensified forest harvests. The first option requires conserving old growth, high biomass forests, through managing them as reserves and protected areas. In the Adirondacks, it was shown that biomass accumulates at higher levels over longer timeframes. However, if we do protect more forest land as a carbon sink, we must question the effects on a global scale. Are we displacing harvest impacts to another part of the world? If there is less wood being used, what are we using as a substitute? And is it actually more sustainable? Everytime we use wood instead of something else, we avoid emissions of other substances, however there is an assumption that it is a 1:1 substitution.

            The second option is a spectrum of different management scenarios that leads right into the third option of heavy management. Intense harvesting with short rotations all the way to long rotations with minimal harvesting. With the range of options, moving towards less intense harvesting can mean more carbon sequestering. Where to fall on the management scale really depends on the other ecosystem services in that setting. Carbon needs to be balanced with bird habitat, wood products, etc…the point is to maximize the benefits through combining all the approaches. Depending on the objective, passive and active management will need to work together to achieve different ends. This will take a new generation of carbon models that can track individual stands over time and simulate different scenarios to optimize how we manage large forests for carbon and for co-benefits.

           I am really excited to check out the variety of forest plots this summer and get further experimental education on the subject!