| Literature DB >> 29414989 |
Junior A Tremblay1, Yan Boulanger2, Dominic Cyr2, Anthony R Taylor3, David T Price4, Martin-Hugues St-Laurent5.
Abstract
Many studies project future bird ranges by relying on correlative species distribution models. Such models do not usually represent important processes explicitly related to climate change and harvesting, which limits their potential for predicting and understanding the future of boreal bird assemblages at the landscape scale. In this study, we attempted to assess the cumulative and specific impacts of both harvesting and climate-induced changes on wildfires and stand-level processes (e.g., reproduction, growth) in the boreal forest of eastern Canada. The projected changes in these landscape- and stand-scale processes (referred to as "drivers of change") were then assessed for their impacts on future habitats and potential productivity of black-backed woodpecker (BBWO; Picoides arcticus), a focal species representative of deadwood and old-growth biodiversity in eastern Canada. Forest attributes were simulated using a forest landscape model, LANDIS-II, and were used to infer future landscape suitability to BBWO under three anthropogenic climate forcing scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5), compared to the historical baseline. We found climate change is likely to be detrimental for BBWO, with up to 92% decline in potential productivity under the worst-case climate forcing scenario (RCP 8.5). However, large declines were also projected under baseline climate, underlining the importance of harvest in determining future BBWO productivity. Present-day harvesting practices were the single most important cause of declining areas of old-growth coniferous forest, and hence appeared as the single most important driver of future BBWO productivity, regardless of the climate scenario. Climate-induced increases in fire activity would further promote young, deciduous stands at the expense of old-growth coniferous stands. This suggests that the biodiversity associated with deadwood and old-growth boreal forests may be greatly altered by the cumulative impacts of natural and anthropogenic disturbances under a changing climate. Management adaptations, including reduced harvesting levels and strategies to promote coniferous species content, may help mitigate these cumulative impacts.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29414989 PMCID: PMC5802891 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191645
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Black-backed Woodpecker range (hatched lines), location of the area where forest landscapes were simulated (delineated in black), and boreal (light gray) and hemiboreal (dark gray) zones (following [49]).
Select input parameters specific to PICUS for species simulated within the study area.
| Species | Species code | Soil nitrogen | Minimum soil pH | Maximum soil pH | Minimum GDD (Base temp 5°C) | Maximum GDD (Base temp 5°C) | Maximum SMI | Optimum SMI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABIE.BAL | 2 | 2 | 9 | 150 | 2723 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| ACER.RUB | 2 | 2 | 9.5 | 500 | 6608 | 0.5 | 0.05 | |
| ACER.SAH | 2 | 1.7 | 9.9 | 450 | 5093 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| BETU.ALL | 2 | 2 | 10 | 500 | 4517 | 0.5 | 0.05 | |
| BETU.PAP | 2 | 2.2 | 9.4 | 150 | 3081 | 0.5 | 0.05 | |
| FAGU.GRA | 2 | 2.1 | 9 | 500 | 5602 | 0.7 | 0.1 | |
| LARI.LAR | 1 | 3 | 9.6 | 150 | 2548 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| PICE.GLA | 3 | 2 | 10.2 | 150 | 2495 | 0.5 | 0.05 | |
| PICE.MAR | 2 | 2 | 8.5 | 150 | 2495 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| PICE.RUB | 2 | 2 | 7.8 | 450 | 3239 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| PINU.BAN | 1 | 2.5 | 10.2 | 300 | 3188 | 0.7 | 0.1 | |
| PINU.RES | 1 | 2.5 | 8 | 500 | 3300 | 0.7 | 0.1 | |
| PINU.STR | 2 | 2 | 9.3 | 500 | 4261 | 0.7 | 0.1 | |
| POPU.TRE | 2 | 2.3 | 11 | 150 | 3024 | 0.5 | 0.05 | |
| QUER.RUB | 1 | 2.3 | 9.3 | 500 | 5171 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| THUJ.OCC | 2 | 3 | 10 | 500 | 3383 | 0.7 | 0.1 | |
| TSUG.CAN | 2 | 2.2 | 9 | 500 | 4660 | 0.5 | 0.05 | |
| Références | ||||||||
* Nitrogen response curves: Three classes (1–3), with 1 being very tolerant;
† USDA’s plant database [64] and the Ontario Silvics Manual [65] were used to derive the widest optimum pH range possible;
‡ Growing Degree-Days (GDD). We used McKenney et al.’s [66] growing season model, specifically minimum GDD for the 0°C growing season window with degree-days over 5°C. For the maximum GDD, we used GDD Maximum from McKenney's et al. [67] previous growing season model;
§ Soil Moisture Index (SMI). Determines each species tolerance to drought (see [68], p. 52). HighTolerance (0.1 to 0.7), MedTolerance (0.05 to 0.5), LowTolerance (0 to 0.3).
LANDIS-II input data for tree species simulated within the study area.
| Species code | Longevity | Age at maturity | Shade tolerance | Effective seed dispersal (m) | Maximum seed dispersal (m) | Vegetative regeneration | Post-fire regeneration | Growth curve shape parameter | Mortality curve shape parameter | SEP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABIE.BAL | 150 | 30 | 5 | 25 | 160 | No | None | 0 | 25 | 0.48±0.05 |
| ACER.RUB | 150 | 10 | 3 | 100 | 200 | Yes | Resprout | 0 | 25 | 0.31±0.21 |
| ACER.SAH | 300 | 40 | 5 | 100 | 200 | Yes | Resprout | 1 | 15 | 0.30±0.14 |
| BETU.ALL | 300 | 40 | 3 | 100 | 400 | Yes | Resprout | 1 | 15 | 0.29±0.19 |
| BETU.PAP | 150 | 20 | 2 | 200 | 5000 | Yes | Resprout | 0 | 25 | 0.55±0.05 |
| FAGU.GRA | 250 | 40 | 5 | 30 | 3000 | Yes | None | 1 | 15 | 0.27±.014 |
| LARI.LAR | 150 | 40 | 1 | 50 | 200 | No | None | 0 | 25 | 0.54±0.06 |
| PICE.GLA | 200 | 30 | 3 | 100 | 303 | No | None | 1 | 15 | 0.43±.041 |
| PICE.MAR | 200 | 30 | 4 | 80 | 200 | No | Serotiny | 1 | 15 | 0.36±0.04 |
| PICE.RUB | 300 | 30 | 4 | 100 | 303 | No | None | 1 | 15 | 0.25±0.11 |
| PINU.BAN | 150 | 20 | 1 | 30 | 100 | No | Serotiny | 0 | 25 | 0.54±0.09 |
| PINU.RES | 200 | 40 | 2 | 12 | 275 | No | None | 1 | 15 | 0.32±0.20 |
| PINU.STR | 300 | 20 | 3 | 100 | 250 | No | None | 1 | 15 | 0.30±0.19 |
| POPU.TRE | 150 | 20 | 1 | 1000 | 5000 | Yes | Resprout | 0 | 25 | 0.59±0.07 |
| QUER.RUB | 250 | 30 | 3 | 30 | 3000 | Yes | Resprout | 1 | 15 | 0.28±0.15 |
| THUJ.OCC | 300 | 30 | 5 | 45 | 60 | No | None | 1 | 15 | 0.26±0.12 |
| TSUG.CAN | 300 | 60 | 5 | 30 | 100 | No | None | 1 | 15 | 0.21±0.11 |
† Index of the ability of species to establish under varying light levels, where 1 is the least shade tolerant and 5 is the most shade tolerant.
‡ Distance within which 95% of seeds disperse.
*SEP (Species Establishment Probability): Mean and standard deviation values are reported for all landtypes under the baseline climate. More results about SEP and other Biomass Succession dynamic inputs can be found in S2 Appendix.
Forest stand characteristics of BBWO habitat type, mean home range size, and mean productivity per home range in each habitat type.
| Habitat type | Forest stand characteristics | Mean homerange size (ha) | Mean productivity (no. of fledglings per year) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Year post-fire | |||
| Old coniferous unburned forest | ≥80 yr | - | 150 | 1.5 |
| Old mixed unburned forest | ≥80 yr | - | 300 | 1.0 |
| Recently burned old coniferous forest | ≥80 yr | 1–5 | 40 | 1.4 |
| Recently burned young coniferous forest | <80 yr | 1–5 | 100 | 0.25 |
| Older burned coniferous forest | ≥80 yr | 6–10 | 200 | 0.4 |
a Based on [38, 42, 43].
b Based on [39, 42, 43].
Fig 2Projected cumulated changes in tree species AGB under baseline, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 climate scenarios.
Fig 3Total Black-backed Woodpecker productivity in the study area as projected for the baseline, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 climate scenarios.
Fig 4Comparison of projected Black-backed Woodpecker productivity (number of fledglings/100 km2) for each habitat type under the baseline, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5 climate scenarios.
Fig 5Relative contribution of habitat types to total Black-backed Woodpecker productivity as projected for the baseline, RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 climate scenarios.
Fig 6Trends in a) the relative difference of potential productivity (ΔProd) between the reduced and the full model for each driver of change and in b) ω2 for each driver of change in Black-backed Woodpecker potential productivity under the RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 forcing scenarios. In b), ω2 values were obtained through three-way factorial ANOVA performed at each time step.