Assessing risks and uncertainties in forest dynamics under different management scenarios and climate change

BackgroundForest management faces a climate induced shift in growth potential and increasing current and emerging new risks. Vulnerability analysis provides decision support based on projections of natural resources taking risks and uncertainties into account. In this paper we (1) characterize differences in forest dynamics under three management scenarios, (2) analyse the effects of the three scenarios on two risk factors, windthrow and drought stress, and (3) quantify the effects and the amount of uncertainty arising from climate projections on height increment and drought stress.MethodsIn four regions in northern Germany, we apply three contrasting management scenarios and project forest development under climate change until 2070. Three climate runs (minimum, median, maximum) based on the emission scenario RCP 8.5 control the site-sensitive forest growth functions. The minimum and maximum climate run define the range of prospective climate development.ResultsThe projections of different management regimes until 2070 show the diverging medium-term effects of thinnings and harvests and long-term effects of species conversion on a regional scale. Examples of windthrow vulnerability and drought stress reveal how adaptation measures depend on the applied management path and the decision-maker’s risk attitude. Uncertainty analysis shows the increasing variability of drought risk projections with time. The effect of climate projections on height growth are quantified and uncertainty analysis reveals that height growth of young trees is dominated by the age-trend whereas the climate signal in height increment of older trees is decisive.ConclusionsDrought risk is a serious issue in the eastern regions independent of the applied silvicultural scenario, but adaptation measures are limited as the proportion of the most drought tolerant species Scots pine is already high. Windthrow risk is no serious overall threat in any region, but adequate counter-measures such as species conversion, species mixture or reduction of target diameter can be taken. This simulation study of three silvicultural scenarios and three climate runs spans a decision space of potential forest development to be used for decision making. Which adaptation measures to counteract climate induced risks and uncertainty are to be taken is, however, a matter of individual risk attitude.

[1]  J. Hansen,et al.  Waldwachstumskundliche Softwaresysteme auf Basis von TreeGrOSS , 2014 .

[2]  Marc Hanewinkel,et al.  Modelling and economic evaluation of forest biome shifts under climate change in Southwest Germany. , 2010 .

[3]  Sanna F. Siddiqui,et al.  Strain response of thermal barrier coatings captured under extreme engine environments through synchrotron X-ray diffraction , 2014, Nature Communications.

[4]  T. Knoke,et al.  Does mixing tree species enhance stand resistance against natural hazards? A case study for spruce , 2012 .

[5]  P. Hanson,et al.  Drought disturbance from climate change: response of United States forests. , 2000, The Science of the total environment.

[6]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. , 2001, Science.

[7]  Peter A. Troch,et al.  Temperature sensitivity of drought-induced tree mortality portends increased regional die-off under global-change-type drought , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  A. Roloff,et al.  Waldbaumarten und ihre Verwendung im Klimawandel , 2008 .

[9]  Jürgen Bauhus,et al.  Storm damage of Douglas-fir unexpectedly high compared to Norway spruce , 2012, Annals of Forest Science.

[10]  A. Barbati,et al.  Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems , 2010 .

[11]  B. Stimm,et al.  Zur Zukunft der Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Mitteleuropa , 2005 .

[12]  L. Bondesson,et al.  Assessing the Risk of Snow and Wind Damage from Tree Physical Characteristics , 1993 .

[13]  C. Fischer,et al.  Ein statistisches Modell zur Regionalisierung der nutzbaren , 2012 .

[14]  C. Schill,et al.  A neural network approach to identify forest stands susceptible to wind damage , 2004 .

[15]  A. Bolte,et al.  The north-eastern distribution range of European beech—a review , 2007 .

[16]  Amy Luers,et al.  Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  VULNERABILITY OF FORESTS TO STORM DAMAGE IN A FOREST DISTRICT OF SOUTH-WESTERN GERMANY SITUATED IN THE PERIPHERY OF THE 1999 STORM (LOTHAR) , 2003 .

[18]  Manfred J. Lexer,et al.  Climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in the Eastern Alps , 2011 .

[19]  Marc Hanewinkel,et al.  An inventory-based approach for modeling single- tree storm damage — experiences with the winter storm of 1999 in southwestern Germany , 2010 .

[20]  Holger R. Maier,et al.  Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making , 2008 .

[21]  Jean-Pascal van Ypersele de Strihou,et al.  Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies , 2008 .

[22]  S. Stephens,et al.  Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[23]  J. Riley,et al.  The analytics of uncertainty and information: Long-run relationships and the credibility of threats and promises , 1992 .

[24]  M. Dobbertin,et al.  Climate change may already threaten Scots pine stands in the Swiss Alps , 2004 .

[25]  R. Laskowski,et al.  Effect of temperature on humus respiration rate and nitrogen mineralization: Implications for global climate change , 1999 .

[26]  M. Schelhaas,et al.  Living with storm damage to forests , 2013 .

[27]  Stephen J. Mitchell,et al.  Empirical modelling of windthrow risk in partially harvested stands using tree, neighbourhood, and stand attributes , 2005 .

[28]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[29]  N. McDowell,et al.  A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests , 2010 .

[30]  K. Blennow,et al.  Decision support for identifying spruce forest stand edges with high probability of wind damage , 2005 .

[31]  J. Borchers.  Accepting uncertainty, assessing risk: decision quality in managing wildfire, forest resource values, and new technology , 2005 .

[32]  Christian S. Zang,et al.  Size-dependent responses to summer drought in Scots pine, Norway spruce and common oak , 2012, Trees.

[33]  Jörg Schulla,et al.  Hydrologische Modellierung von Flussgebieten zur Abschätzung der Folgen von Klimaänderungen , 1997 .

[34]  M. Linder,et al.  Developing adaptive forest management strategies to cope with climate change. , 2000, Tree physiology.

[35]  Roger Jones,et al.  Managing Uncertainty in Climate Change Projections – Issues for Impact Assessment , 2000 .

[36]  J. Lappi.  Calibration of Height and Volume Equations with Random Parameters , 1991, Forest Science.

[37]  M. Bredemeier,et al.  Risk Appraisal for Forest Management with Respect to Site Quality and Environmental Changes , 2001 .

[38]  M. Schmidt,et al.  Climate-sensitive modelling of site-productivity relationships for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) , 2010 .

[39]  M. Farooq,et al.  Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[40]  H. Pretzsch,et al.  Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed versus pure forests: evidence of stress release by inter-specific facilitation. , 2013, Plant biology.

[41]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis , 2004 .

[42]  Christian Zang,et al.  Zur Baumarteneignung bei Klimawandel : Ableitung der Trockenstress-Anfälligkeit wichtiger Waldbaumarten aus Jahrringbreiten , 2011 .

[43]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C , 2013 .

[44]  Jean-Philippe Schütz,et al.  Vulnerability of spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest stands to storms and consequences for silviculture , 2006, European Journal of Forest Research.

[45]  D. Richards,et al.  Understanding uncertainty , 2012, Evidence-Based Dentistry.

[46]  Christopher S. Galik,et al.  Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate , 2009 .

[47]  E. D. Martonne.  L'indice d'aridité , 1926 .

[48]  G. Nabuurs,et al.  Adaptive forest management in central Europe: Climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept , 2009 .

[49]  H. Pretzsch,et al.  Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870 , 2014, Nature Communications.

[50]  池谷 壽夫,et al.  Vulnerability: reflections on a new ethical foundation for law and politics , 2013 .

[51]  Christof Bigler,et al.  Linking Increasing Drought Stress to Scots Pine Mortality and Bark Beetle Infestations , 2007, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[52]  Klaus von Gadow,et al.  Risk Analysis in Forest Management , 2001, Managing Forest Ecosystems.

[53]  L. Anderegg,et al.  Not all droughts are created equal: translating meteorological drought into woody plant mortality. , 2013, Tree physiology.

[54]  Klaus von Gadow,et al.  Evaluating risk in forest planning models , 2000 .

[55]  B. Orlowsky,et al.  A resampling scheme for regional climate simulations and its performance compared to a dynamical RCM , 2008 .

[56]  H. Peltola,et al.  A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch , 1999 .

[57]  H. Linderholm,et al.  A comparison of growing season indices for the Greater Baltic Area , 2006, International journal of biometeorology.

[58]  Ü. Niinemets,et al.  Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate northern hemisphere trees and shrubs , 2006 .