Models that are both spatially and temporally dynamic are needed to forecast where and when non-native pests and pathogens are likely to spread, to provide advance information for natural resource managers. The potential US range of the invasive spotted lanternfly (SLF, Lycorma delicatula) has been modeled, but until now, when it could reach the West Coast’s multi-billion-dollar fruit industry has been unknown. We used process-based modeling to forecast the spread of SLF assuming no treatments to control populations occur. We found that SLF has a low probability of first reaching the grape-producing counties of California by 2027 and a high probability by 2033. Our study demonstrates the importance of spatio-temporal modeling for predicting the spread of invasive species to serve as an early alert for growers and other decision makers to prepare for impending risks of SLF invasion. It also provides a baseline for comparing future control options.

Ecological forecasting has vast potential to support environmental decision making with repeated, testable predictions across management‐relevant timescales and locations. Yet resource managers rarely use co‐designed forecasting systems or embed them in decision making. Although prediction of planned management outcomes is particularly important for biological invasions to optimize when and where resources should be allocated, spatial–temporal models of spread typically have not been openly shared, iteratively updated, or interactive to facilitate exploration of management actions. We describe a species‐agnostic, open‐source framework – called the Pest or Pathogen Spread (PoPS) Forecasting Platform – for co‐designing near‐term iterative forecasts of biological invasions. Two case studies are presented to demonstrate that iterative calibration yields higher forecast skill than using only the earliest‐available data to predict future spread. The PoPS framework is a primary example of an ecological forecasting system that has been both scientifically improved and optimized for real‐world decision making through sustained participation and use by management stakeholders.

In spite of increasing point density and accuracy, airborne lidar point clouds often exhibit point density variations. Some of these density variations indicate issues with point clouds, potentially leading to errors in derived products. To highlight these issues, we provide an overview of point density variations and show examples in six airborne lidar point cloud datasets that we used in our topographic and geospatial modeling research. Using the published literature, we identified sources of point density variations and issues indicated or caused by these variations. Lastly, we discuss the reduction in point density variations using decimations, homogenizations, and their applicability.

Increasing population and rural to urban migration are accelerating urbanization globally, permanently transforming natural systems over large extents. Modelling landscape change over large regions, however, presents particular challenges due to local-scale variations in social and environmental factors that drive land change. We simulated urban development across the South Atlantic States (SAS), a region experiencing rapid population growth and urbanization, using FUTURES—an open source land change model that uses demand for development, local development suitability factors, and a stochastic patch growing algorithm for projecting alternative futures of urban form and landscape change. New advances to the FUTURES modelling framework allow for high resolution projections over large spatial extents by leveraging parallel computing. We simulated the adoption of different urban growth strategies that encourage settlement densification in the SAS as alternatives to the region’s increasing sprawl. Evaluation of projected patterns indicate a 15% increase in urban lands by 2050 given a status quo development scenario compared to a 14.8% increase for the Infill strategy. Status quo development resulted in a 3.72% loss of total forests, 2.97% loss of highly suitable agricultural land, and 3.69% loss of ecologically significant lands. An alternative Infill scenario resulted in similar losses of total forest (3.62%) and ecologically significant lands (3.63%) yet consumed less agricultural lands (1.23% loss). Moreover, infill development patterns differed qualitatively from the status quo and resulted in less fragmentation of the landscape.