Divergent trends in ecosystem services under different climate-management futures in a fire-prone forest landscape

While ecosystem services and climate change are often examined independently, quantitative assessments integrating these fields are needed to inform future land management decisions. Using climate-informed state-and-transition simulations, we examined projected trends and tradeoffs for a suite of ecosystem services under four climate change scenarios and two management scenarios (active management emphasizing fuel treatments and no management other than fire suppression) in a fire-prone landscape of dry and moist mixed-conifer forests in central Oregon, USA. Focal ecosystem services included fire potential (regulating service), timber volume (provisioning service), and potential wildlife habitat (supporting service). Projections without climate change suggested active management in dry mixed-conifer forests would create more open forest structures, reduce crown fire potential, and maintain timber stocks, while in moist mixed-conifer forests, active management would reduce crown fire potential but at the expense of timber stocks. When climate change was considered, however, trends in most ecosystem services changed substantially, with large increases in wildfire area predominating broad-scale trends in outputs, regardless of management approach (e.g., strong declines in timber stocks and habitat for closed-forest wildlife species). Active management still had an influence under a changing climate, but as a moderator of the strong climate-driven trends rather than being a principal driver of ecosystem service outputs. These results suggest projections of future ecosystem services that do not consider climate change may result in unrealistic expectations of benefits.

[1]  C. Brooks Climatic Change , 1913, Nature.

[2]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios : a special report of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[3]  W. Parton,et al.  MC1: a dynamic vegetation model for estimating the distribution of vegetation and associated carbon, nutrients, and water—technical documentation. Version 1.0. , 2001 .

[4]  Janet L. Ohmann,et al.  Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest- neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A. , 2002 .

[5]  H. B. Gordon,et al.  The CSIRO Mk3 climate system model , 2002 .

[6]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios , 2003 .

[7]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Living beyond our means : natural assets and human well-being, statement form the board , 2005 .

[8]  A. Fischlin,et al.  Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services , 2007 .

[9]  Hayley J. Fowler,et al.  Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling , 2007 .

[10]  C. Daly,et al.  Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States , 2008 .

[11]  Robert A. Norheim,et al.  Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA , 2010 .

[12]  J. Montoya,et al.  Climate change, biotic interactions and ecosystem services , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  D. Peter,et al.  A landscape model for predicting potential natural vegetation of the Olympic Peninsula USA using boundary equations and newly developed environmental variables. , 2011 .

[14]  R. Neilson,et al.  Impacts of climate change on fire regimes and carbon stocks of the U.S. Pacific Northwest , 2011 .

[15]  H. Bugmann,et al.  Adaptive management for competing forest goods and services under climate change. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[16]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe , 2012 .

[17]  C. Daniel,et al.  Predicting landscape vegetation dynamics using state-and-transition simulation models , 2012 .

[18]  M. Adams,et al.  Mega-fires, tipping points and ecosystem services: Managing forests and woodlands in an uncertain future , 2013 .

[19]  D. Bachelet,et al.  Assessing potential climate change effects on vegetation using a linked model approach , 2013 .

[20]  Jiangxiao Qiu,et al.  Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Ché Elkin,et al.  A 2 °C warmer world is not safe for ecosystem services in the European Alps , 2013, Global change biology.

[22]  Integrating social, economic, and ecological values across large landscapes , 2014 .

[23]  Lee H. MacDonald,et al.  Climate change impacts on fire regimes and key ecosystem services in Rocky Mountain forests , 2014 .

[24]  Peter H. Singleton,et al.  The ecology and management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land management , 2014 .

[25]  E. Natasha Stavros,et al.  Regional projections of the likelihood of very large wildland fires under a changing climate in the contiguous Western United States , 2014, Climatic Change.

[26]  T. Spies,et al.  Mixed-conifer forests of central Oregon: effects of logging and fire exclusion vary with environment. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[27]  Joshua S Halofsky,et al.  Dry forest resilience varies under simulated climate‐management scenarios in a central Oregon, USA landscape. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[28]  Scott L. Stephens,et al.  Temperate and boreal forest mega‐fires: characteristics and challenges , 2014 .

[29]  Ch. 8: Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment , 2014 .

[30]  M. North,et al.  Wildfire and drought dynamics destabilize carbon stores of fire-suppressed forests. , 2014, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[31]  J. Lawler,et al.  Relative sensitivity to climate change of species in northwestern North America , 2015 .

[32]  C. Millar,et al.  Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance , 2015, Science.

[33]  Zhiliang Zhu,et al.  Projected carbon stocks in the conterminous USA with land use and variable fire regimes , 2015, Global change biology.

[34]  Sarah C. Sawyer,et al.  Managing Climate Change Refugia for Climate Adaptation , 2016, PloS one.

[35]  Peter H. Singleton,et al.  Tamm Review: Management of mixed-severity fire regime forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California , 2016 .

[36]  Rupert Seidl,et al.  Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services. , 2016, The Journal of applied ecology.

[37]  Marco Mina,et al.  Future ecosystem services from European mountain forests under climate change , 2017 .