Abstract
Abstract
Key message
Climate envelope analysis of nine tree species shows that Fagus sylvatica L. and Picea abies H. Karst could lose 58% and 40% of their current distribution range. Quercus pubescens Willd and Quercus cerris L. may win areas equal with 47% and 43% of their current ranges. The ratio of poorly predictable areas increases by 105% in southern and south-eastern Europe.
Context
Climate change requires adaptive forest management implementations. To achieve climate neutrality, we have to maintain and expand forest areas. Impact assessments have great importance.
Aims
The study estimates the potential climate envelopes of nine European tree species for a past period (1961–1990) and for three future periods (2011–2040, 2041–2070, 2071–2100) under two emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) based on the current species distribution.
Methods
Climate envelopes were estimated simultaneously using the random forest method. Multi-resolution segmentation was used to determine the climatic characteristics of each species and their combinations. Models were limited to the geographical area within which the climatic conditions correspond to the climatic range of the training areas.
Results
Results showed remarkable changes in the extent of geographic areas of all the investigated species’ climate envelopes. Many of the tree species of Central Europe could lose significant portions of their distribution range. Adhering to the shift in climate, these tree species shift further north as well as towards higher altitudes.
Conclusion
European forests face remarkable changes, and the results support climate envelope modelling as an important tool that provides guidelines for climate adaptation to identify threatened areas or to select source and destination areas for reproductive material.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference76 articles.
1. Allen CD, Breshears DD, McDowell NG (2015) On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6:1–55. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00203.1
2. Anderegg WRL, Hicke JA, Fisher RA, Allen CD, Aukema J, Bentz B, Hood S, Lichstein JW, Macalady AK, McDowell N, Pan YD, Raffa K, Sala SJD, Stephenson NL, Tague C, Zeppel M (2015) Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytologist 208(3):674–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13477
3. Árvai M, Morgós A, Kern Z (2018) Growth-climate relations and the enhancement of drought signals in Pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) tree-ring chronology in Eastern Hungary. IForest 11(2):267–274. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2348-011
4. Barbati, A, Corona, P and Marchetti, M (2007) European forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest management reporting and policy, European Environmental Agency Technical Report No.9/2006. pp 111. Copenhagen. ISSN 1725-2237. ISBN 978-92-9167-926-3
5. Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert CH, Thuiller W (2012) Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol Evol 3:327–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00172.x
Cited by
17 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献