Andreas Bolte, Peter Spathelf, Ernst van der Maaten Andreas Bolte 1, Peter Spathelf 2, Ernst van der...

Andreas Bolte, Peter Spathelf, Ernst van der Maaten

Andreas Bolte1, Peter Spathelf2, Ernst van der Maaten3

1Thünen Institute of Forest Ecosystems, Eberswalde, Germany; 2Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Dept. Forest and

Environment, Eberswalde, Germany; 3University Greifswald, Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald, Germany

IUFRO International Conference on Uneven-aged Silviculture,Birmensdorf / Switzerland 2014

Forest Adaptation and Close-to-Nature Silviculture (CNS) – coherence or contradiction?


Outline

• Vulnerability concept and status

• Close-to-nature silviculture (CNS) - principles

• Adaptive capacity

• CNS versus forest adaptation – coherence and

conflicts

• Conclusions

18/06/2014 9th IUFRO International Conference on Uneven-aged Silviculture


Impacts of CC: Vulnerability concept

Foto: M. Löf Foto: A. Bolte


Vulnerability concept


• Exposure specifies the projected changes in climate affecting a system.

• Sensitivity describes the degree to which a system is responding to direct climatic and indirect (e.g. biotic) effects.

• Adaptive capacity describes the ability of a system to adapt to changes (e.g. climate).

• Vulnerability can be defined as the degree to which a system is susceptible to be affected by adverse effects of climate change.

(cf. Lindner et al., 2010)


Exposures: Projected changes in dryness


Source: IPCC, 2012


Exposures: Standardized cyclone track density


• Northern central Europe is often affected by storms;

• An increase in extreme wind intensities for this region is projected (Leckebusch et al., 2006).

Source: Leckebusch et al., 2008 (p 76)


Increase of forest vulnerability (Europe)

Increasing wood volume losses biased by record high standing volume in European forests? (cf. Bolte et al. 2009)


Source: Dobbertin & DeVries, 2008 (based on Schelhaas et al., 2003)

Biotic attacs following storm and drought events are important drivers for tree and stand mortality.

Windthrow Bark beetle attacks

Exposure ↗ or Sensitivity ↗ ? Vulnerability?


Vulnerability - combined impacts (storm/drought)

Total stock dynamics at Siggaboda nature reserve 2004 to 2011


Source: Bolte et al., 2014


Stand adaptation by succession from spruce to beech


Source: Bolte et al., 2010, 2014

High resistance to storm(Storm damage, Spruce:only 11% BA loss)

Low resistance ofspruce towardsbark beetle attacks(75% BA loss)

2011

2005

2004

Beech (n = 39):y = 0.3841x + 1.7749

r² = 0.44, p<0.001

Spruce (n = 33):y = 0.1982x + 1.4619

r² = 0.18, p<0.05

0

1

2

3

-2 -1 0 1 2

Re

lati

ve

vo

lum

e in

cre

men

t 2

00

4 -

20

11

ln[ivr]

(%)

Decrease competition index 2004 - 2011 ln[-iCI], no unit

Beech

Spruce


Conceptual scheme of CC supported forest succession and stand adaptation


Source: Bolte et al., 2014


Some interim conclusions/hypotheses

• Storm, heat/drought, and accompanying biotic impacts are probably the most important exposures to CC of European forests.

• Several exposures/impacts interact with each other (e.g. storm damages, drought/heat waves and bark beetle infestations).

• Distinct disturbances (and not long-term CC effects) play a major role for CC-supported forest succession.

• The availability of tolerant, adaptable, or resilient tree species, populations, and specimens are essential for the vulnerability status of forest stands.



Close-to-nature silviculture - principles

Foto: A. Bolte


Close-to-nature silviculture (CNS)

Principles of CNS (Central European perspective, sensu: „Naturgemäße Waldwirtschaft“, cf. Pro Silva Principles 2012)

• Avoidance of clear-cuts

• Single-tree (and group) oriented interventions (no stand-scale!)

• Promotion of the natural and/or site-adapted tree species composition

• Promotion of mixed and ‘structured’ forests

• Promotion of natural regeneration

• Integration of forest ecosystem services (e.g. water, recreation) at small spatial scales

Aimed to mimicking small-scale disturbance regime


Source: Spathelf et al., 2014


CNS and silvicultural systems – a coherence?

Regular and irregular shelterwood system (Femelschlag) acc. to Röhrig et al. (2006)



Some interim conclusions/hypotheses

• CNS (C-E style) is rather a ‘philosophy’ that a certain silvicultural system.

• CNS is tree-oriented (and groups as tree-competitor associations).

• CNS can be included in different silvicultural systems but it is rather difficult to ‘translate’ CNS into specific stand-scale silvicultural systems.

• It may be interesting to use the principles directly for evaluations.


tsanders

for evaluations or rather IN evaluations?


Adaptive capacity (trees and populations)

Foto: J. Müller


Adaptive processes

(1) Long-term evolutionary adaptation- over one or more generations- due to selection processes

(2) Phenotypic plasticity (acclimation) - ensuring short-term persistence of several years or

a decade- due to individual alternation of plant morphology

and/or physiology



Species range shifts and local adaptation (‘rear edge‘)


Source: Hampe and Petit, 2005


Beech distribution margins (North-eastern C-E)



Evolutionary adaptation of rear edge-populations (young beech plants!)


Source: Czajkowski and Bolte, 2006


Phenotypic plasticity of European beech (old-growth stand)

Projected cumulative increment deviations

(PCR scenarios, model CLIMTREG), European beech (Hainich National Park)


2nd calibration period (1982-2006)

1st calibration period(1957-1981)

Source: Beck et al., 2013

Measured series1st calibration period 1957 to 19812nd calibration period 1982 to 2006Scenario based on 1st calibration periodScenario based on 2nd calibration period


Adaptive capacity to major CC impacts


Sensitivity to

Phenotypic plasticity

(individual level)Evol. Adaptation

(population level)

Succession / tree species change (species level)

Heat low medium high

Drought medium medium high

Storm medium medium high

Biotic agents low medium high

Total low - medium medium high


CNS versus forest adaptation – coherences and conflicts


Contradictory aspects of CNS and forest adaptation


Major CNS principles

Phenotypic plasticity

(individual level)Evol. Adaptation

(population level)

Succession / tree species change (species level)

Single-tree or group management (no clear-

cuts) o.K. o.K.Less light-demanding

pioneer species

Promotion mixed/structured forests o.K. o.K. o.K.

Natural regenaration o.K.No assisted migration

(provenances)No assisted migration

(tree species)

Natural tree composition o.K. o.K.No assisted migration

(tree species)

0 1 3


Tree species selection/changes prefered


Source: Spathelf et al., 2014


CNS and forest adaptation to CC – some conclusions

CNS is a meaningful system (or ‘philosophy’) to support forest adaptation to CC mainly on tree (individual) and sometimes population level.

However there are shortcomings when regarding the species level (promoting succession) by:

• the avoidance to introduce ‘neo-native’ tree species and provenances

• the promotion of mid- and late-successional species that limits the occurrence of stress-tolerant pioneer tree species.

Thus, ‘active adaptation’ measures and ‘human-induced’ assisted migration are restricted.

Thus, a strict application of CNS may limit the silvicultural options necessary for a successful adaptation of forest to CC.



Thank you for your attention!


References

Beck, W.; Sanders, T.G.M.; Pofahl, U. (2013): CLIMTREG - detecting temporal changes in climate-growth reactions - a computer program using intra-annual daily and yearly moving time intervals of variable width. Dendrochronologia (in press).

Bolte, A.; Ammer, C., Löf, M.; et al. (2009): Adaptive forest management in Central Europe - climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept. Scand. J. For. Res. 24, 6: 473-482.

Bolte, A. ; Hilbrig, L.; Grundmann, B. M.; Roloff, AS. (2013): Understory dynamics after disturbance accelerate succession from spruce to beech-dominated forest – the Siggaboda case study. Ann. For. Sci., DOI 10.1007/s13595-013-0283-y (Online)

Czajkowski, T.; Bolte, A. (2006): Unterschiedliche Reaktion deutscher und polnischer Herkünfte der Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) auf Trockenheit. Allg. Forst- u. J.-Ztg. 177: 30-40 (in German with English summary).

Dobbertin M.; DeVries W (2008): Interactions between climate change and forest ecosystems. In: Fischer, R. (ed.) Forest ecosystems in a changing environment: identifying future monitoring and research needs. Report and Recommendations COST Strategic Workshop 11–13 March 2008, Istanbul, Turkey. http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/COST.pdf. Accessed 07 April 2013.

Hampe, A.;Petit, R.J. (2005): Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecology Letters 8: 461-467.

Lindner, M.; Maroschek, M.; Netherer, S.; et al. (2010): Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 698–709.

Puettmann, K. Coates, K.D.; Messier, C. (2009) A critique of silviculture: Managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington, DC.,206 p.

Spathelf, P.; Bolte, A. (in review): Is Close-to-Nature Silviculture (CNS) an adequate concept for adapting forests to climate change? Annals of Forest Science (in review)


Andreas Bolte, Peter Spathelf, Ernst van der Maaten Andreas Bolte 1, Peter Spathelf 2, Ernst van der...

Documents

Transcript of Andreas Bolte, Peter Spathelf, Ernst van der Maaten Andreas Bolte 1, Peter Spathelf 2, Ernst van der...