, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 60–74 | Cite as

Modeling Forest Mortality Caused by Drought Stress: Implications for Climate Change

  • Eric J. GustafsonEmail author
  • Brian R. Sturtevant


Climate change is expected to affect forest landscape dynamics in many ways, but it is possible that the most important direct impact of climate change will be drought stress. We combined data from weather stations and forest inventory plots (FIA) across the upper Great Lakes region (USA) to study the relationship between measures of drought stress and mortality for four drought sensitivity species groups using a weight-of-evidence approach. For all groups, the model that predicted mortality as a function of mean drought length had the greatest plausibility. Model tests confirmed that the models for all groups except the most drought tolerant had predictive value. We assumed that no relationship exists between drought and mortality for the drought-tolerant group. We used these empirical models to develop a drought extension for the forest landscape disturbance and succession model LANDIS-II, and applied the model in Oconto county, Wisconsin (USA) to assess the influence of drought on forest dynamics relative to other factors such as stand-replacing disturbance and site characteristics. The simulations showed that drought stress does affect species composition and total biomass, but effects on age classes, spatial pattern, and productivity were insignificant. We conclude that (for the upper Midwest) (1) a drought-induced tree mortality signal can be detected using FIA data, (2) tree species respond primarily to the length of drought events rather than their severity, (3) the differences in drought tolerance of tree species can be quantified, (4) future increases in drought can potentially change forest composition, and (5) drought is a potentially important factor to include in forest dynamics simulations because it affects forest composition and carbon storage.


drought stress climate change tree mortality forest landscape disturbance and succession model LANDIS-II forest biomass 



We thank John Stanovick for his considerable assistance with designing and implementing the statistical analyses. We thank Brian Miranda for programing the drought extension and Rob Scheller and Jimm Domingo for LANDIS-II technical support. Thanks to Scott Pugh, Mark Hansen, and Greg Liknes for assistance with the FIA database. Thanks to Chris Woodall for assistance with relative density calculations. Thanks to Mark Theisen of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for sharing his knowledge of tree biology. Thanks to Tina Baumann, Sue Lietz, and Richard McCullough for GIS technical support. We also thank Rob Scheller, Scott Pugh, and two anonymous reviewers for critical reviews that helped us greatly improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10021_2012_9596_MOESM1_ESM.doc (53 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 53 kb)


  1. Allen CD, Breshears DD. 1998. Drought-induced shift of a forest-woodland ecotone: rapid landscape response to climate variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 95:14839–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim J-H, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A, Cobb N. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259:660–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns RM, Honkala BH, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  4. Bigler C, Gavin DG, Gunning C, Veblen TT. 2007. Drought induces lagged tree mortality in a subalpine forest in the Rocky Mountains. Oikos 116:1983–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breshears DD, Myers OB, Meyer CW, Barnes FJ, Zou CB, Allen CD, McDowell NG, Pockman WT. 2009. Tree die-off in response to global change-type drought: mortality insights from a decade of plant water potential measurements. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:185–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer. p 488.Google Scholar
  7. Cleland DT, Crow TR, Saunders SC, Dickmann DI, Maclean AL, Jordan JK, Watson RL, Sloan AM, Brosofske KD. 2004. Characterizing historical and modern fire regimes in Michigan (USA): a landscape ecosystem approach. Landscape Ecology 19:311–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleland DT, Freeouf JA, Keys JE, Jr., Nowacki GJ, Carpenter C, McNab WH. 2007. Ecological subregions: sections and subsections of the conterminous United States [1:3,500,000] [CD-ROM]. Sloan AM, cartog. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
  9. Clinton BD, Boring LR, Swank WT. 1993. Canopy gap characteristics and drought influences in oak forests of the Coweeta Basin. Ecology 74:1551–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb NS, Mitton JB, Whitham TG. 1994. Genetic variation associated with chronic water and nutrient stress in pinyon pine. American Journal of Botany 81:936–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Condit R, Hubbell SP, Foster RB. 1995. Mortality rates of 205 neotropical tree and shrub species and the impact of severe drought. Ecological Monographs 65:419–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dent JB, Blackie MJ. 1979. Systems simulation in agriculture. London: Applied Science Publishers, Ltd. p 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott KJ, Swank WT. 1994. Impacts of drought on tree mortality and growth in a mixed hardwood forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ, Dwyer JM. 2012. Potential aboveground biomass in drought-prone forest used for rangeland pastoralism. Ecological Applications 22:894–908.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frelich LE, Reich PB. 2010. Will environmental changes reinforce the impact of global warming on the prairie-forest border of central North America? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ganey JL, Vojta SC. 2011. Tree mortality in drought-stressed mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine forests, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 261:162–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guarin A, Taylor AH. 2005. Drought triggered tree mortality in mixed conifer forests in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 218:229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gustafson EJ, Shifley SR, Mladenoff DJ, He HS, Nimerfro KK. 2000. Spatial simulation of forest succession and timber harvesting using LANDIS. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustafson EJ, Lietz SM, Wright JL. 2003. Predicting the spatial distribution of aspen growth potential in the upper Great Lakes region. Forest Science 49:499–508.Google Scholar
  20. Gustafson EJ, Shvidenko AZ, Sturtevant BR, Scheller RM. 2010. Predicting climate change effects on forest biomass and composition in south-central Siberia. Ecological Applications 20:700–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson PJ, Weltzin F. 2000. Drought disturbance from climate change: response of United States forests. The Science of the Total Environment 262:205–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ. 2000. An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15:591–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heddinghause TR, Sabol P. 1991. A review of the palmer drought severity index and where do we go from here? Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Applied Climatology, Boston (MA): American Meteorological Society. pp. 242–46.Google Scholar
  24. Hogg EH, Brandt JP, Michaelian M. 2008. Impacts of a regional drought on the productivity, dieback, and biomass of western Canadian aspen forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38:1373–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koepke DF, Kolb TE, Adams HD. 2010. Variation in woody plant mortality and dieback from severe drought among soils, plant groups, and species within a northern Arizona ecotone. Oecologia 163:1079–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J. 1995. Drought monitoring with multiple time scales. Proceedings, 9th Conference on Applied Climatology, January 15–20, Dallas (TX). pp. 233–36.Google Scholar
  27. Manion PD. 1981. Tree disease concepts. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall. p 399.Google Scholar
  28. McEwan RW, Dyer JM, Pederson N. 2011. Multiple interacting ecosystem drivers: toward an encompassing hypothesis of oak forest dynamics across eastern North America. Ecography 34:244–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McMahon SM, Dietze MC, Hersh MH, Moran EV, Clark JS. 2009. A predictive framework to understand forest responses to global change. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1162:221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer WC. 1965. Meteorological drought. Research Paper No. 45, Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau.Google Scholar
  31. Pedersen BS. 1998. The role of stress in the mortality of midwestern oaks as indicated by growth prior to death. Ecology 79:79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raffa KF, Aukema BH, Bentz BJ, Carroll AL, Hicke JA, Turner MG, Romme WH. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience 58:501–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SAS Institute Inc. 2011. SAS/STAT® 9.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ. 2004. A forest growth and biomass module for a landscape simulation model, LANDIS: design, validation, and application. Ecological Modelling 180:211–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ. 2005. A spatially interactive simulation of climate change, harvesting, wind, and tree species migration and projected changes to forest composition and biomass in northern Wisconsin, USA. Global Change Biology 11:307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheller RM, Domingo JB, Sturtevant BR, Williams JS, Rudy A, Gustafson EJ, Mladenoff DJ. 2007. Design, development, and application of LANDIS-II, a spatial landscape simulation model with flexible temporal and spatial resolution. Ecological Modelling 201:409–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scheller RM, Mladenoff DJ. 2008. Simulated effects of climate change, fragmentation, and inter-specific competition on tree species migration in northern Wisconsin, USA. Climate Research 36:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheller RM, Sturtevant BR, Gustafson EJ, Ward BC, Mladenoff DJ. 2010. Increasing the reliability of ecological models using modern software engineering techniques. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheil D, Burslem DFRP, Alder D. 1995. The interpretation and misinterpretation of mortality rate measures. Journal of Ecology 83:331–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sturtevant B, Miranda B, Yang J, He H, Gustafson E, Scheller R. 2009. Studying fire mitigation strategies in multi-ownership landscapes: Balancing the management of fire-dependent ecosystems and fire risk. Ecosystems 12:445–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thornthwaite CW. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographic Review 38:55–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Woodall C, Miles PD, Vissage JS. 2005. Determining maximum stand density index in mixed species stands for strategic-scale stocking assessments. Forest Ecology and Management 216:367–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Worrall JJ, Marchettia SB, Egelanda L, Maska RA, Eagera T, Howell B. 2010. Effects and etiology of sudden aspen decline in southwestern Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 260:638–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woudenberg, SW, Conkling BL, O’Connell, BM, LaPoint, BE, Turner, JA, Waddell, KL. 2010. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database description and users manual version 4.0 for Phase 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-245. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  45. Wyckoff PH, Bowers R. 2010. Response of the prairie-forest border to climate change: impacts of increasing drought may be mitigated by increasing CO2. Journal of Ecology 98:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside USA) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies, Northern Research Station, USDA Forest ServiceRhinelanderUSA

Personalised recommendations