The impact of tropospheric ozone on landscape-level merchantable biomass and ecosystem carbon in Canadian forests
Studies have shown that tropospheric ozone (O3) impacts trees in various ways, including growth reductions. To date, the landscape-level response of Canadian forests carbon (C) to O3 exposure has not been quantified. We used a modified version of the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector and data from Aspen FACE to quantify the landscape-level impacts of different O3 exposure modelling experiments. The main strengths of our approach consisted of using the most complete empirical data available to estimate the amount and location of forest C across Canada, as well as explicitly simulating the consequences of fire, insect, and harvest disturbances on forest C dynamics. These disturbances lead to younger forests and, considering trees sensitivity to O3 exposure to decrease with age, thus result in higher landscape-level modelled impacts for the same O3 levels. Despite various sources of uncertainty, our results indicate that even under a modelling experiment where O3 increases continuously over four decades, the landscape-level impacts on the merchantable biomass and ecosystem C remain limited. Our results also suggest that the current direct impacts of O3 on Canadian forests are likely below detection at the landscape level.
KeywordsTropospheric ozone Forest carbon Canada Disturbances Modelling
We wish to thank the Air Quality Model Application Section (Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada) for providing us with the 4 th highest O 3 AURAMS data. We are appreciative of the comments provided by Dr. Andrzej Bytnerowicz, Pr. Sagar Krupa, and Dr. Allan Legge on the development of the ERF and their implementation into CBM-CFS3. The Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division (Economic Analysis Directorate, Environment Canada) provided funds that enabled this study. The Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada provided support for model development and analyses. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for suggestions that have improved the manuscript, as well as G. Grill and B. Mehdi for helpful comments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cooper OR, Parrish DD, Stohl A, Trainer M, Nédélec P, Thouret V, Cammas JP, Oltmans SJ, Johnson BJ, Tarasick D, Leblanc T, McDermid IS, Jaffe D, Gao R, Stith J, Ryerson T, Aikin K, Campos T, Weinheimer A, Avery MA (2010) Increasing springtime ozone mixing ratios in the free troposphere over western North America. Nature 463:344–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Making progress on ground-level ozone. Internet version accessed on 28 Nov 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/usca/progress_2008.html
- Felzer B, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Wang C, Zhuang Q, Prinn R (2004) Effects of ozone on net primary production and carbon sequestration in the conterminous United States using a biogeochemistry model. Tellus 56B:230–248Google Scholar
- Karlsson PE, Pleijel H, Belhaj M, Danielsson H, Dahlin B, Andersson M, Hansson M, Munthe J, Grennfelt P (2005) Economic assessment of the negative impacts of ozone on crop yields and forest production. A case study of the Estate Östads Säteri in southwestern Sweden. Ambio 34:32–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kull SJ, Kurz WA, Rampley GJ, Banfield GE, Schivatcheva RK, Apps MJ (2007) Operational-Scale Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) Version 1.0: User’s Guide. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Kurz WA, Apps MJ, Webb TM, McNamee PJ (1992) The carbon budget of the Canadian forest sector: phase I. Information Report NOR-X-326, Forestry Canada, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Oltmans SJ, Lefohn AS, Harris JM, Galbally I, Scheel HE, Bodeker G, Brunke E, Claude H, Tarasick D, Johnson BJ, Simmonds P, Shadwick D, Anlauf K, Hayden K, Schmidlin F, Fujimoto T, Akagi K, Meyer C, Nichol S, Davies J, Redondas A, Cuevas E (2006) Long-term changes in tropospheric ozone. Atmos Environ 40:3156–3173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paoletti E, Schaub M, Matyssek R, Wieser G, Augustaitis A, Bastrup-Birk AM, Bytnerowicz A, Günthardt-Goerg MS, Müller-Starck G, Serengil Y (2010) Advances of air pollution science: from forest decline to multiple-stress effects on forest ecosystem services. Environ Pollut 158:1986–1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Percy KE, Nosal M, Heilman W, Dann T, Sober J, Karnosky DF (2009) Ozone exposure-based growth response models for trembling aspen and white birch. In AH Legge (ed) Air quality and ecological impacts: relating sources to effects, developments in environmental science, vol 9. Oxford, United Kingdom, pp 269–293Google Scholar
- Power K, Gillis M (2006) Canada’s Forest Inventory 2001. Information Report BC-X-408, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- Watanabe M, Yamaguchi M, Matsumura H, Kohno Y, Izuta T (2012) Risk assessment of ozone impact on Fagus crenata in Japan: consideration of atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Eur J For Res 131:475–484Google Scholar