Search

Forests provide important ecosystem services (ESs), including climate change mitigation, local climate regulation, habitat for biodiversity, wood and non‐wood products, energy, and recreation. Simultaneously, forests are increasingly affected by climate change and need to be adapted to future environmental conditions. Current legislation, including the European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy, EU Forest Strategy, and national laws, aims to protect forest landscapes, enhance ESs, adapt forests to climate change, and leverage forest products for climate change mitigation and the bioeconomy. However, reconciling all these competing demands poses a tremendous task for policymakers, forest managers, conservation agencies, and other stakeholders, especially given the uncertainty associated with future climate impacts. Here, we used process‐based ecosystem modeling and robust multi‐criteria optimization to develop forest management portfolios that provide multiple ESs across a wide range of climate scenarios. We included constraints to strictly protect 10% of Europe's land area and to provide stable harvest levels under every climate scenario. The optimization showed only limited options to improve ES provision within these constraints. Consequently, management portfolios suffered from low diversity, which contradicts the goal of multi‐functionality and exposes regions to significant risk due to a lack of risk diversification. Additionally, certain regions, especially those in the north, would need to prioritize timber provision to compensate for reduced harvests elsewhere. This conflicts with EU LULUCF targets for increased forest carbon sinks in all member states and prevents an equal distribution of strictly protected areas, introducing a bias as to which forest ecosystems are more protected than others. Thus, coordinated strategies at the European level are imperative to address these challenges effectively. We suggest that the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, EU Forest Strategy, and targets for forest carbon sinks require complementary measures to alleviate the conflicting demands on forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forests mitigate climate change by storing carbon and reducing emissions via substitution effects of wood products. Additionally, they provide many other important ecosystem services (ESs), but are vulnerable to climate change; therefore, adaptation is necessary. Climate‐smart forestry combines mitigation with adaptation, whilst facilitating the provision of many ESs. This is particularly challenging due to large uncertainties about future climate. Here, we combined ecosystem modeling with robust multi‐criteria optimization to assess how the provision of various ESs (climate change mitigation, timber provision, local cooling, water availability, and biodiversity habitat) can be guaranteed under a broad range of climate futures across Europe. Our optimized portfolios contain 29% unmanaged forests, and implicate a successive conversion of 34% of coniferous to broad‐leaved forests (11% vice versa). Coppices practically vanish from Southern Europe, mainly due to their high water requirement. We find the high shares of unmanaged forests necessary to keep European forests a carbon sink while broad‐leaved and unmanaged forests contribute to local cooling through biogeophysical effects. Unmanaged forests also pose the largest benefit for biodiversity habitat. However, the increased shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests lead to reductions in harvests. This raises the question of how to meet increasing wood demands without transferring ecological impacts elsewhere or enhancing the dependence on more carbon‐intensive industries. Furthermore, the mitigation potential of forests depends on assumptions about the decarbonization of other industries and is consequently crucially dependent on the emission scenario. Our findings highlight that trade‐offs must be assessed when developing concrete strategies for climate‐smart forestry. Plain Language Summary: Forests help mitigate climate change by storing carbon and via avoided emissions when wood products replace more carbon‐intensive materials. At the same time, forests provide many other "ecosystem services (ESs)" to society. For example, they provide timber, habitat for various species, and they cool their surrounding regions. They are, however, also vulnerable to ongoing climate change. Forest management must consider all these aspects, which is particularly challenging considering the uncertainty about future climate. Here, we propose how this may be tackled by computing optimized forest management portfolios for Europe for a broad range of future climate pathways. Our results show that changes to forest composition are necessary. In particular, increased shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests are beneficial for numerous ESs. However, these increased shares also lead to decreases in harvest rates, posing a conflict between wood supply and demand. We further show that the mitigation potential of forests strongly depends on how carbon‐intensive the replaced materials are. Consequently, should these materials become "greener" due to new technologies, the importance of wood products in terms of climate change mitigation decreases. Our study highlights that we cannot optimize every aspect, but that trade‐offs between ESs need to be made. Key Points: Strategies for climate‐smart forestry under a range of climate scenarios always lead to trade‐offs between different ecosystem services (ESs)Higher shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests are beneficial for numerous ESs, but lead to decreased timber provisionThe mitigation potential of forests strongly relies on substitution effects which depend on the carbon‐intensity of the alternative products [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The terrestrial carbon sink provides a critical negative feedback to climate warming, yet large uncertainty exists on its long‐term dynamics. Here we combined terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) and climate projections, together with climate‐specific land use change, to investigate both the trend and interannual variability (IAV) of the terrestrial carbon sink from 1986 to 2099 under two representative concentration pathways RCP2.6 and RCP6.0. The results reveal a saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink by the end of this century under RCP6.0 due to warming and declined CO2 effects. Compared to 1986–2005 (0.96 ± 0.44 Pg C yr−1), during 2080–2099 the terrestrial carbon sink would decrease to 0.60 ± 0.71 Pg C yr−1 but increase to 3.36 ± 0.77 Pg C yr−1, respectively, under RCP2.6 and RCP6.0. The carbon sink caused by CO2, land use change and climate change during 2080–2099 is −0.08 ± 0.11 Pg C yr−1, 0.44 ± 0.05 Pg C yr−1, and 0.24 ± 0.70 Pg C yr−1 under RCP2.6, and 4.61 ± 0.17 Pg C yr−1, 0.22 ± 0.07 Pg C yr−1, and ‐1.47 ± 0.72 Pg C yr−1 under RCP6.0. In addition, the carbon sink IAV shows stronger variance under RCP6.0 than RCP2.6. Under RCP2.6, temperature shows higher correlation with the carbon sink IAV than precipitation in most time, which however is the opposite under RCP6.0. These results suggest that the role of terrestrial carbon sink in curbing climate warming would be weakened in a no‐mitigation world in future, and active mitigation efforts are required as assumed under RCP2.6. Key Points: Elevated temperature has negative impacts on terrestrial carbon sinkCO2 effects on terrestrial carbon sink saturate at high CO2 concentrationInterannual variability of terrestrial carbon sink is more correlated with temperature under RCP2.6 but precipitation under RCP6.0 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Plain Language Summary: Global warming changes the frequency, intensity, and spatial distribution of extreme events. We analyze computer simulations of river floods, tropical cyclones, crop failure, wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves under past, present‐day, and potential future climate conditions. Our results show that global warming increases the number of people around the world that are affected by these events each year, both for all event types combined and each type individually. Changes in the chance of being affected by extreme events are unevenly distributed in space. Particularly large increases are simulated for tropical and subtropical regions. Key Points: We quantify the pure effect of climate change on the exposure to extreme climate impact events, for both historical and future time periodsGlobal warming increases the global population exposure to river floods, tropical cyclones, crop failure, wildfires, droughts, and heatwavesThe largest increases in exposure are projected for tropical and subtropical regions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil organic carbon changes (ΔSOC) are regulated by climate and land use change. Here, we analyze regional and global ΔSOC from 1861 to 2099 based on five terrestrial biosphere model (TBM) simulations of the Inter‐Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2b. The TBMs were driven by harmonized gridded land use change and bias‐adjusted climate forcing data from different general circulation models (GCMs) for climate scenarios RCP 2.6 and RCP 6.0. Between 2005 and the end of this century, we estimated an increase of SOC for two scenarios with large uncertainty, which is dominated by differences between TBMs. We present a new emergent constraint approach to constrain future modeled ΔSOC over natural vegetation from RCP 6.0 simulations using recent observed trends of net primary productivity as a proxy of litter inputs to soil pools. Our results showed that the uncertainties in constrained ΔSOC can be reduced in comparison with the original model ensemble, but constrained values of ΔSOC depend on the choice of a GCM and climate regions. For the reduction of the SOC density in areas where cropland expanded (Δsoccropland expansion) over natural vegetation as a result of land use change, the constrained Δsoccropland expansion still features large uncertainties due to uncertain observed data. Our proposed emergent constraint approach appears to be valuable to reduce uncertainty on SOC projections, but it is limited here by the small number of models (five) and by the uncertainty in the observational data. Applications to larger ensembles from Earth System Models should be tested for the future. Key Points: The uncertainty in soil organic carbon (SOC) change is dominated by differences between model structure rather than by climate forcingSoil input changes explain most variations in projected SOC change for natural vegetation across models at global and regionThe effective reduction in constrained SOC change depends on climate forcing and region considered [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carbon fluxes at the land‐atmosphere interface are strongly influenced by weather and climate conditions. Yet what is usually known as "climate extremes" does not always translate into very high or low carbon fluxes or so‐called "carbon extremes." To reveal the patterns of how climate extremes influence terrestrial carbon fluxes, we analyzed the interannual variations in ecosystem carbon fluxes simulated by the Terrestrial Biosphere Models (TBMs) in the Inter‐Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. At the global level, TBMs simulated reduced ecosystem net primary productivity (NPP; 18.5 ± 9.3 g C m−2 yr−1), but enhanced heterotrophic respiration (Rh; 7 ± 4.6 g C m−2 yr−1) during extremely hot events. TBMs also simulated reduced NPP (60.9 ± 24.4 g C m−2 yr−1) and reduced Rh (16.5 ± 11.4 g C m−2 yr−1) during extreme dry events. Influences of precipitation extremes on terrestrial carbon uptake were larger in the arid/semiarid zones than other regions. During hot extremes, ecosystems in the low latitudes experienced a larger reduction in carbon uptake. However, a large fraction of carbon extremes did not occur in concert with either temperature or precipitation extremes. Rather these carbon extremes are likely to be caused by the interactive effects of the concurrent temperature and precipitation anomalies. The interactive effects showed considerable spatial variations with the largest effects on NPP in South America and Africa. Additionally, TBMs simulated a stronger sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to precipitation than satellite estimates. This study provides new insights into the complex ecosystem responses to climate extremes, especially the emergent properties of carbon dynamics resulting from compound climate extremes. Plain Language Summary: Terrestrial ecosystems sequestrate a large amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to mitigate climate warming. Climate extremes, such as droughts and heatwaves, play a significant role in determining the capacity of land ecosystems in carbon uptake. In the past decades, terrestrial biosphere models have been widely used to investigate the magnitude and variations of carbon fluxes between land and the atmosphere. In this study, we attempted to understand how model‐simulated carbon fluxes respond to climate anomalies and extremes at the global level and across regions. Analysis of model simulations showed significant spatial variations in the sensitivity of carbon fluxes to climate variations. Interestingly, concurrences of abnormal temperature and precipitation could have stronger impacts on carbon fluxes than individual temperature or precipitation extreme event. This study is important for better understanding climate extreme impacts on ecosystem dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Key Points: Impacts of temperature or precipitation extremes on carbon fluxes could be amplified due to their interactive effectsHot extremes lead to a larger carbon loss in tropics while ecosystems in the arid and semi‐arid zones show the largest sensitivity to precipitationModels simulated larger sensitivity of ecosystem productivity to precipitation than satellite product, particularly in tropics [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forest carbon use efficiency (CUE, the ratio of net to gross primary productivity) represents the fraction of photosynthesis that is not used for plant respiration. Although important, it is often neglected in climate change impact analyses. Here we assess the potential impact of thinning on projected carbon cycle dynamics and implications for forest CUE and its components (i.e., gross and net primary productivity and plant respiration), as well as on forest biomass production. Using a detailed process‐based forest ecosystem model forced by climate outputs of five Earth System Models under four representative climate scenarios, we investigate the sensitivity of the projected future changes in the autotrophic carbon budget of three representative European forests. We focus on changes in CUE and carbon stocks as a result of warming, rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, and forest thinning. Results show that autotrophic carbon sequestration decreases with forest development, and the decrease is faster with warming and in unthinned forests. This suggests that the combined impacts of climate change and changing CO2 concentrations lead the forests to grow faster, mature earlier, and also die younger. In addition, we show that under future climate conditions, forest thinning could mitigate the decrease in CUE, increase carbon allocation into more recalcitrant woody pools, and reduce physiological‐climate‐induced mortality risks. Altogether, our results show that thinning can improve the efficacy of forest‐based mitigation strategies and should be carefully considered within a portfolio of mitigation options. Key Points: How will C‐fluxes, CUE, and C‐stocks of the major European forest types may respond to elevated atmospheric CO2, warming, and management in the future?Results show that managed forests left unthinned will reduce their CUE and their C‐stocks capability faster under climate change because of accelerated developmentResults show that thinning may have a large influence on C‐sequestration improving forest efficiency in stocking C as also in preventing risks of forest dieback [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Anthropogenic global change compromises forest resilience, with profound impacts to ecosystem functions and services. This synthesis paper reflects on the current understanding of forest resilience and potential tipping points under environmental change and explores challenges to assessing responses using experiments, observations and models. 2. Forests are changing over a wide range of spatio-temporal scales, but it is often unclear whether these changes reduce resilience or represent a tipping point. Tipping points may arise from interactions across scales, as processes such as climate change, land-use change, invasive species or deforestation gradually erode resilience and increase vulnerability to extreme events. Studies covering interactions across different spatio-temporal scales are needed to further our understanding. 3. Combinations of experiments, observations and process-based models could improve our ability to project forest resilience and tipping points under global change. We discuss uncertainties in changing CO2 concentration and quantifying tree mortality as examples. 4. Synthesis. As forests change at various scales, it is increasingly important to understand whether and how such changes lead to reduced resilience and potential tipping points. Understanding the mechanisms underlying forest resilience and tipping points would help in assessing risks to ecosystems and presents opportunities for ecosystem restoration and sustainable forest management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Forests around the world are changing as a result of human activity. These changes have substantial impacts on the resilience of forests, possibly pushing them towards tipping points. 2. The objective of this Special Feature is to present research that fosters the understanding of forest resilience and potential tipping points under global change. This editorial summarizes the key findings of the seven papers in this Special Feature and puts them in the wider context of resilience thinking. 3. Synthesis. The contributions to this Special Feature show that resilience is a useful concept to understand ecosystem change but that we have to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms and feedback loops involved in forest resilience and potential tipping points. Finally, this Special Feature presents evidence about how resilience thinking is used to better understand and manage degraded forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We review observational, experimental, and model results on how plants respond to extreme climatic conditions induced by changing climatic variability. Distinguishing between impacts of changing mean climatic conditions and changing climatic variability on terrestrial ecosystems is generally underrated in current studies. The goals of our review are thus (1) to identify plant processes that are vulnerable to changes in the variability of climatic variables rather than to changes in their mean, and (2) to depict/evaluate available study designs to quantify responses of plants to changing climatic variability. We find that phenology is largely affected by changing mean climate but also that impacts of climatic variability are much less studied, although potentially damaging. We note that plant water relations seem to be very vulnerable to extremes driven by changes in temperature and precipitation and that heatwaves and flooding have stronger impacts on physiological processes than changing mean climate. Moreover, interacting phenological and physiological processes are likely to further complicate plant responses to changing climatic variability. Phenological and physiological processes and their interactions culminate in even more sophisticated responses to changing mean climate and climatic variability at the species and community level. Generally, observational studies are well suited to study plant responses to changing mean climate, but less suitable to gain a mechanistic understanding of plant responses to climatic variability. Experiments seem best suited to simulate extreme events. In models, temporal resolution and model structure are crucial to capture plant responses to changing climatic variability. We highlight that a combination of experimental, observational, and/or modeling studies have the potential to overcome important caveats of the respective individual approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]