| Literature DB >> 32301569 |
Katharina Albrich1,2, Werner Rammer1,2, Rupert Seidl1,2.
Abstract
Mountain forests are at particular risk of climate change impacts due to their temperature limitation and high exposure to warming. At the same time, their complex topography may help to buffer the effects of climate change and create climate refugia. Whether climate change can lead to critical transitions of mountain forest ecosystems and whether such transitions are reversible remain incompletely understood. We investigated the resilience of forest composition and size structure to climate change, focusing on a mountain forest landscape in the Eastern Alps. Using the individual-based forest landscape model iLand, we simulated ecosystem responses to a wide range of climatic changes (up to a 6°C increase in mean annual temperature and a 30% reduction in mean annual precipitation), testing for tipping points in vegetation size structure and composition under different topography scenarios. We found that at warming levels above +2°C a threshold was crossed, with the system tipping into an alternative state. The system shifted from a conifer-dominated landscape characterized by large trees to a landscape dominated by smaller, predominantly broadleaved trees. Topographic complexity moderated climate change impacts, smoothing and delaying the transitions between alternative vegetation states. We subsequently reversed the simulated climate forcing to assess the ability of the landscape to recover from climate change impacts. The forest landscape showed hysteresis, particularly in scenarios with lower precipitation. At the same mean annual temperature, equilibrium vegetation size structure and species composition differed between warming and cooling trajectories. Here we show that even moderate warming corresponding to current policy targets could result in critical transitions of forest ecosystems and highlight the importance of topographic complexity as a buffering agent. Furthermore, our results show that overshooting ambitious climate mitigation targets could be dangerous, as ecological impacts can be irreversible at millennial time scales once a tipping point has been crossed.Entities:
Keywords: Alps; climate impacts; forest dynamics; forest simulation model; mountain forest landscape; resilience; topographic buffering
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32301569 PMCID: PMC7317840 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Chang Biol ISSN: 1354-1013 Impact factor: 13.211
FIGURE 1Map of the study area, showing the historical mean annual temperature (1961–2014) and the position of the landscape within Central Europe (insert). Isolines are 100 m apart (Basemaps from basemap.at, copernicus.eu, ec.europa.eu)
FIGURE 2The response of forest size structure (here described as the number of trees > 30 cm in diameter) to climate warming (red, triangles) and subsequent cooling (purple, circles). Values describe the state of the landscape at equilibrium (median, 5th and 95th percentiles across 10 replicates) and trajectories for all simulated replicates are shown. Trajectory lines are fitted using a LOESS model
FIGURE 3The response of forest composition (here described as the share of Norway spruce on total basal area) to climate warming (red, triangles) and subsequent cooling (purple, circles). Values describe the state of the landscape at equilibrium (median, 5th and 95th percentiles across 10 replicates) and trajectories for all simulated replicates are shown. Trajectory lines are fitted using a LOESS model
Bray–Curtis Dissimilarity quantifying the difference in forest size structure between warming and cooling trajectories at each temperature step separately for each topography and precipitation scenario. A significant difference indicates the presence of a hysteresis effect. The significance of the differences at each step was tested using a PERMANOVA
| Temperature change | Precipitation scenario | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Minus 10% | Minus 20% | Minus 30% | |||||
| Topography scenario | ||||||||
| Complex | Uniform | Complex | Uniform | Complex | Uniform | Complex | Uniform | |
| 0 | 0.010 | 0.003 | 0.038 | 0.009 | 0.078 | 0.003 | 0.117 | 0.011 |
| 1 | 0.019 | 0.366 | 0.058 | 0.352 | 0.066 | 0.240 | 0.078 | 0.376 |
| 2 | 0.058 | 0.053 | 0.060 | 0.124 | 0.059 | 0.119 | 0.058 | 0.135 |
| 3 | 0.032 | 0.221 | 0.022 | 0.138 | 0.025 | 0.090 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| 4 | 0.022 | 0.293 | 0.025 | 0.168 | 0.033 | 0.042 | 0.030 | 0.004 |
| 5 | 0.014 | 0.032 | 0.017 | 0.010 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
Significance levels
p < .05,
p < .01,
p<=0.001.
Bray–Curtis Dissimilarity quantifying the difference in forest species composition between warming and cooling trajectories at each temperature step separately for each topography and precipitation scenario. A significant difference indicates the presence of a hysteresis effect. The significance of the differences at each step was tested using a PERMANOVA
| Temperature change | Precipitation scenario | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Minus 10% | Minus 20% | Minus 30% | |||||
| Topography scenario | ||||||||
| Complex | Uniform | Complex | Uniform | Complex | Uniform | Complex | Uniform | |
| 0 | 0.051 | 0.011 | 0.092 | 0.012 | 0.181 | 0.011 | 0.287 | 0.012 |
| 1 | 0.089 | 0.371 | 0.184 | 0.363 | 0.272 | 0.150 | 0.356 | 0.275 |
| 2 | 0.161 | 0.187 | 0.275 | 0.266 | 0.375 | 0.740 | 0.374 | 0.840 |
| 3 | 0.303 | 0.704 | 0.327 | 0.824 | 0.302 | 0.656 | 0.209 | 0.235 |
| 4 | 0.316 | 0.875 | 0.298 | 0.792 | 0.229 | 0.192 | 0.163 | 0.022 |
| 5 | 0.243 | 0.385 | 0.177 | 0.089 | 0.106 | 0.022 | 0.071 | 0.024 |
Significance levels
p < .05,
p < .01,
p<=0.001.
FIGURE 4Location of the forest landscape in structure–composition attractor space for different warming levels and the complex (a) and uniform (b) topography scenarios over all precipitation scenarios. Marginal plots and isolines give the probability density of all simulated cases, and indicate two alternative stable states for our study landscape