Search

Recent studies projecting future climate change impacts on forests mainly consider either the effects of climate change on productivity or on disturbances. However, productivity and disturbances are intrinsically linked because 1) disturbances directly affect forest productivity (e.g. via a reduction in leaf area, growing stock or resource-use efficiency), and 2) disturbance susceptibility is often coupled to a certain development phase of the forest with productivity determining the time a forest is in this specific phase of susceptibility. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of forest productivity changes in different forest regions in Europe under climate change, and partition these changes into effects induced by climate change alone and by climate change and disturbances. We present projections of climate change impacts on forest productivity from state-of-the-art forest models that dynamically simulate forest productivity and the effects of the main European disturbance agents (fire, storm, insects), driven by the same climate scenario in seven forest case studies along a large climatic gradient throughout Europe. Our study shows that, in most cases, including disturbances in the simulations exaggerate ongoing productivity declines or cancel out productivity gains in response to climate change. In fewer cases, disturbances also increase productivity or buffer climate-change induced productivity losses, e.g. because low severity fires can alleviate resource competition and increase fertilization. Even though our results cannot simply be extrapolated to other types of forests and disturbances, we argue that it is necessary to interpret climate change-induced productivity and disturbance changes jointly to capture the full range of climate change impacts on forests and to plan adaptation measures., Environmental Research Letters, 12 (3), ISSN:1748-9326, ISSN:1748-9318

Adapting the management of forest resources to climate change involves addressing several crucial aspects to provide a valid basis for decision making. These include the knowledge and belief of decision makers, the mapping of management options for the current as well as anticipated future bioclimatic and socioeconomic conditions, and the ways decisions are evaluated and made. We investigate the adaptive management process and develop a framework including these three aspects, thus providing a structured way to analyze the challenges and opportunities of managing forests in the face of climate change. We apply the framework for a range of case studies that differ in the way climate and its impacts are projected to change, the available management options, and how decision makers develop, update, and use their beliefs about climate change scenarios to select among adaptation options, each being optimal for a certain climate change scenario. We describe four stylized types of decision-making processes that differ in how they (1) take into account uncertainty and new information on the state and development of the climate and (2) evaluate alternative management decisions: the “no-change,” the “reactive,” the “trend-adaptive,” and the “forward-looking adaptive” decision-making types. Accordingly, we evaluate the experiences with alternative management strategies and recent publications on using Bayesian optimization methods that account for different simulated learning schemes based on varying knowledge, belief, and information. Finally, our proposed framework for identifying adaptation strategies provides solutions for enhancing forest structure and diversity, biomass and timber production, and reducing climate change-induced damages. They are spatially heterogeneous, reflecting the diversity in growing conditions and socioeconomic settings within Europe., Ecology and Society, 22 (4), ISSN:1708-3087

Understanding the processes that shape forest functioning, structure, and diversity remains challenging, although data on forest systems are being collected at a rapid pace and across scales. Forest models have a long history in bridging data with ecological knowledge and can simulate forest dynamics over spatio‐temporal scales unreachable by most empirical investigations. We describe the development that different forest modelling communities have followed to underpin the leverage that simulation models offer for advancing our understanding of forest ecosystems. Using three widely applied but contrasting approaches – species distribution models, individual‐based forest models, and dynamic global vegetation models – as examples, we show how scientific and technical advances have led models to transgress their initial objectives and limitations. We provide an overview of recent model applications on current important ecological topics and pinpoint ten key questions that could, and should, be tackled with forest models in the next decade. Synthesis. This overview shows that forest models, due to their complementarity and mutual enrichment, represent an invaluable toolkit to address a wide range of fundamental and applied ecological questions, hence fostering a deeper understanding of forest dynamics in the context of global change., Ecology and Evolution, 11 (9), ISSN:2045-7758

Global impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought., Nature Communications, 10 (1), ISSN:2041-1723

Amplified climate warming has led to permafrost degradation and a shortening of the winter season, both impacting cost-effective overland travel across the Arctic. Here we use, for the first time, four state-of-the-art Land Surface Models that explicitly consider ground freezing states, forced by a subset of bias-adjusted CMIP5 General Circulation Models to estimate the impact of different global warming scenarios (RCP2.6, 6.0, 8.5) on two modes of winter travel: overland travel days (OTDs) and ice road construction days (IRCDs). We show that OTDs decrease by on average −13% in the near future (2021–2050) and between −15% (RCP2.6) and −40% (RCP8.5) in the far future (2070–2099) compared to the reference period (1971–2000) when 173 d yr−1 are simulated across the Pan-Arctic. Regionally, we identified Eastern Siberia (Sakha (Yakutia), Khabarovsk Krai, Magadan Oblast) to be most resilient to climate change, while Alaska (USA), the Northwestern Russian regions (Yamalo, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Nenets, Komi, Khanty-Mansiy), Northern Europe and Chukotka are highly vulnerable. The change in OTDs is most pronounced during the shoulder season, particularly in autumn. The IRCDs reduce on average twice as much as the OTDs under all climate scenarios resulting in shorter operational duration. The results of the low-end global warming scenario (RCP2.6) emphasize that stringent climate mitigation policies have the potential to reduce the impact of climate change on winter mobility in the second half of the 21st century. Nevertheless, even under RCP2.6, our results suggest substantially reduced winter overland travel implying a severe threat to livelihoods of remote communities and increasing costs for resource exploration and transport across the Arctic., Environmental Research Letters, 16 (2), ISSN:1748-9326, ISSN:1748-9318

Models are pivotal for assessing future forest dynamics under the impacts of changing climate and management practices, incorporating representations of tree growth, mortality, and regeneration. Quantitative studies on the importance of mortality submodels are scarce. We evaluated 15 dynamic vegetation models (DVMs) regarding their sensitivity to different formulations of tree mortality under different degrees of climate change. The set of models comprised eight DVMs at the stand scale, three at the landscape scale, and four typically applied at the continental to global scale. Some incorporate empirically derived mortality models, and others are based on experimental data, whereas still others are based on theoretical reasoning. Each DVM was run with at least two alternative mortality submodels. Model behavior was evaluated against empirical time series data, and then, the models were subjected to different scenarios of climate change. Most DVMs matched empirical data quite well, irrespective of the mortality submodel that was used. However, mortality submodels that performed in a very similar manner against past data often led to sharply different trajectories of forest dynamics under future climate change. Most DVMs featured high sensitivity to the mortality submodel, with deviations of basal area and stem numbers on the order of 10–40% per century under current climate and 20–170% under climate change. The sensitivity of a given DVM to scenarios of climate change, however, was typically lower by a factor of two to three. We conclude that (1) mortality is one of the most uncertain processes when it comes to assessing forest response to climate change, and (2) more data and a better process understanding of tree mortality are needed to improve the robustness of simulated future forest dynamics. Our study highlights that comparing several alternative mortality formulations in DVMs provides valuable insights into the effects of process uncertainties on simulated future forest dynamics., Ecosphere, 10 (2), ISSN:2150-8925

Arctic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change because of Arctic amplification. Here, we assessed the climatic impacts of low-end, 1.5 °C, and 2.0 °C global temperature increases above pre-industrial levels, on the warming of terrestrial ecosystems in northern high latitudes (NHL, above 60 °N including pan-Arctic tundra and boreal forests) under the framework of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b protocol. We analyzed the simulated changes of net primary productivity, vegetation biomass, and soil carbon stocks of eight ecosystem models that were forced by the projections of four global climate models and two atmospheric greenhouse gas pathways (RCP2.6 and RCP6.0). Our results showed that considerable impacts on ecosystem carbon budgets, particularly primary productivity and vegetation biomass, are very likely to occur in the NHL areas. The models agreed on increases in primary productivity and biomass accumulation, despite considerable inter-model and inter-scenario differences in the magnitudes of the responses. The inter-model variability highlighted the inadequacies of the present models, which fail to consider important components such as permafrost and wildfire. The simulated impacts were attributable primarily to the rapid temperature increases in the NHL and the greater sensitivity of northern vegetation to warming, which contrasted with the less pronounced responses of soil carbon stocks. The simulated increases of vegetation biomass by 30–60 Pg C in this century have implications for climate policy such as the Paris Agreement. Comparison between the results at two warming levels showed the effectiveness of emission reductions in ameliorating the impacts and revealed unavoidable impacts for which adaptation options are urgently needed in the NHL ecosystems., Environmental Research Letters, 15 (4), ISSN:1748-9326, ISSN:1748-9318

The extent and impact of climate‐related extreme events depend on the underlying meteorological, hydrological, or climatological drivers as well as on human factors such as land use or population density. Here we quantify the pure effect of historical and future climate change on the exposure of land and population to extreme climate impact events using an unprecedentedly large ensemble of harmonized climate impact simulations from the Inter‐Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b. Our results indicate that global warming has already more than doubled both the global land area and the global population annually exposed to all six categories of extreme events considered: river floods, tropical cyclones, crop failure, wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves. Global warming of 2°C relative to preindustrial conditions is projected to lead to a more than fivefold increase in cross‐category aggregate exposure globally. Changes in exposure are unevenly distributed, with tropical and subtropical regions facing larger increases than higher latitudes. The largest increases in overall exposure are projected for the population of South Asia., Earth's Future, 8 (12), ISSN:2328-4277