Climatic Change

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 259–273 | Cite as

Impacts of climate change on primary production and carbon sequestration of boreal Norway spruce forests: Finland as a model

  • Zhen-Ming Ge
  • Seppo Kellomäki
  • Heli Peltola
  • Xiao Zhou
  • Hannu Väisänen
  • Harri Strandman
Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the potential impacts of climate change on the spatial patterns of primary production and net carbon sequestration in relation to water availability in Norway spruce (Picea abies) dominated forests throughout Finland (N 60°–N 70°). The Finnish climatic scenarios (FINADAPT) based on the A2 emission scenario were used. According to the results, the changing climate increases the ratio of evapotranspiration to precipitation in southern Finland, while it slightly decreases the ratio in northern Finland, with regionally lower and higher soil water content in the south and north respectively. During the early simulation period of 2000–2030, the primary production and net carbon sequestration are higher under the changing climate in southern Finland, due to a moderate increase in temperature and atmospheric CO2. However, further elevated temperature and soil water stress reduces the primary production and net carbon sequestration from the middle period of 2030–2060 to the final period of 2060–2099, especially in the southernmost region. The opposite occurs in northern Finland, where the changing climate increases the primary production and net carbon sequestration over the 100-year simulation period due to higher water availability. The net carbon sequestration is probably further reduced by the stimulated ecosystem respiration (under climate warming) in southern Finland. The higher carbon loss of the ecosystem respiration probably also offset the increased primary production, resulting in the net carbon sequestration being less sensitive to the changing climate in northern Finland. Our findings suggest that future forest management should carefully consider the region-specific conditions of sites and adaptive practices to climate change for maintained or enhanced forest production and carbon sequestration.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_607_MOESM1_ESM.doc (253 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 253 kb)

References

  1. Ainsworth EA, Long SP (2005) What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol 165:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battles JJ, Robards T, Das A, Waring K, Gilless JK, Biging G, Schurr F (2008) Climate change impacts on forest growth and tree mortality: a data-driven modeling study in the mixedconifer forest of the Sierra Nevada, California. Clim Chang 87:S193–S213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergh J, Linder S, Bergström J (2005) Potential production of Norway spruce in Sweden. For Ecol Manag 204:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bréda N, Granier A, Aussenac G (1995) Effects of thinning on soil and tree water relations, transpiration and growth in an oak forest (Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.). Tree Physiol 15:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter TR, Jylhä K, Perrels A, Fronzek S, Kankaanpää S (2005) FINADAPT scenarios for the 21st century: alternative futures for considering adaptation to climate change in Finland. FINADAPT Working Paper 2, Finnish Environmental Institute Mimeographs, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  6. Eastaugh CS, Pötzelsberger E, Hasenauer H (2011) Assessing the impacts of climate change and nitrogen deposition on Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) growth in Austria with BIOME-BGC. Tree Physiol 31:262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finnish Forest Research Institute (2007) The Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry. Finnish Forest Research Institute - Metla/Communications, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  8. Gastineau G, Soden BJ (2009) Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming. Geophys Res Lett 36:L10810. doi:10.1029/2009GL037500 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ge ZM, Zhou X, Kellomäki S, Wang KY, Peltola H, Väisänen H, Strandman H (2010) Effects of changing climate on water and nitrogen availability with implications on the productivity of Norway spruce stands in southern Finland. Ecol Model 221:1731–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ge ZM, Kellomäki S, Zhou X, Wang KY, Peltola H (2011a) Evaluation of carbon exchange in a boreal coniferous stand over a 10–year period: an integrated analysis based on ecosystem model simulations and eddy covariance measurements. Agric For Meteorol 151:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ge ZM, Kellomäki S, Zhou X, Wang KY, Peltola H (2011b) Climate, canopy conductance and leaf area development controls on evapotranspiration and its components in a boreal coniferous stand over a 10 year period: a united assessment based on hydrological model with forest growth model. Ecol Model 222:1626–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ge ZM, Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Zhou X, Wang KY, Väisänen H (2012) Effects of climate change on the evapotranspiration and water availability in the boreal forests located in Southern Finland: an ecosystem model based approach. Ecohydrology. doi:10.1002/eco.276
  13. Ise T, Dunn AL, Wofsy SC, Moorcroft PR (2008) High sensitivity of peat decomposition to climate change through water-table feedback. Nat Geosci 1:763–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jönsson AM, Harding S, Bärring L, Ravn HP (2007) Impact of climate change on the population dynamics of Ips typographus in southern Sweden. Agric For Meteorol 146:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jyske T, Hölttä T, Mäkinen H, Nöjd P, Lumme I, Spiecker H (2010) The effect of artificially induced drought on radial increment and wood properties of Norway spruce. Tree Physiol 30:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kellomäki S, Väisänen H (1996) Model computations on the effect of rising temperature on soil moisture and water availability in forest ecosystems dominated by scots pine in the boreal zone in Finland. Clim Chang 32:423–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kellomäki S, Väisänen H, Strandman H (1993) FinnFor: a model for calculating the response of boreal forest ecosystem to climatic change. University of Joensuu. Faculty of forestry. Res Notes 6:1–121Google Scholar
  18. Kellomäki S, Strandman H, Nuutinen T, Peltola H, Korhonen KT, Väisänen H (2005) Adaptation of forest ecosystems, forests and forestry to climate change. FINADAPT Working Paper 4, Finnish Environment Institute Mimeographs 334, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  19. Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT, Strandman H (2008) Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Phil Trans R Soc B 363:2339–2349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Komonen A, Schroeder LM, Weslien J (2011) Ips typographus population development after a severe storm in a nature reserve in southern Sweden. J Appl Entomol 135:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loustau D, Bosc A, Colin A, Ogée J, Davi H, François C, Dufrêne E, Déqué M, Cloppet E, Arrouays D, Le Bas C, Saby N, Pignard G, Hamza N, Granier A, Bréda N, Ciais P, Viovy N, Delage F (2005) Modeling climate change effects on the potential production of French plains forests at the sub-regional level. Tree Physiol 25:813–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo Y, Melillo J, Niu S, Beier C, Clark JS, Classen AT, Davidson E, Dukes JS, Evans RD, Field CB, Czimczik CI, Keller M, Kimball BA, Kueppers LM, Norby RJ, Pelini SL, Pendall E, Rastetter E, Six J, Smith M, Tjoelker MG, Torn MS (2011) Coordinated approaches to quantify long-term ecosystem dynamics in response to global change. Glob Chang Biol 17:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy HR, Oren R, Johnsen KH, Gallet-Budynek A, Pritchard SG, Cook CW, LaDeau SL, Jackson RB, Finzi AC (2010) Re-assessment of plant carbon dynamics at the Duke free-air CO2 enrichment site: interactions of atmospheric [CO2] with nitrogen and water availability over stand development. New Phytol 185:514–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Misson L, Vincke C, Devillez F (2003) Frequency responses of radial growth series after different thinning intensities in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) karst.) stands. For Ecol Manag 177:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips N, Bergh J, Oren R, Linder S (2001) Effects of nutrition and soil water availability on water use in a Norway spruce stand. Tree Physiol 21:851–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimm S, Roulet N, Weaver A (2009) Boreal forests’ carbon stores need better management. Nature 462:276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Potter C, Klooster S, Huete A, Genovese V, Bustamante M, Ferreira LG, Cosme de Oliveira R Jr, Zepp R (2009) Terrestrial carbon sinks in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado region predicted from MODIS satellite data and ecosystem modeling. Biogeosciences 6:1–23Google Scholar
  28. Pussinen A, Nabuurs GJ, Wieggers HJJ, Reinds GJ, Wamelink GWW, Kros J, Mol-Dijkstra JP, de Vries W (2009) Modelling long-term impacts of environmental change on mid- and high-latitude European forests and options for adaptive forest management. For Ecol Manag 258:1806–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberntz P, Stockfors J (1998) Effects of elevated CO2 concentration and nutrition on net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and needle respiration of field-grown Norway spruce trees. Tree Physiol 18:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schlyter P, Stjernquist I, Bärring L, Jönsson AM, Nilsson C (2006) Assessment of the impacts of climate change and weather extremes on boreal forests in northern Europe, focusing on Norway spruce. Clim Res 31:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seidl R, Blennow K (2012) Pervasive growth reduction in Norway spruce forests following wind disturbance. PLoS One 7:e33301. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tamminen P (1991) Expression of soil nutrient status and regional variation in soil fertility of forested sites in southern Finland. Folia For 777:1–40Google Scholar
  33. Tapio (2006) Finnish forest management recommendations. Metsäkustannus OY, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  34. Zang C, Pretzsch H, Rothe A (2012) Size-dependent responses to summer drought in Scots pine, Norway spruce and common oak. Trees 26:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhen-Ming Ge
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seppo Kellomäki
    • 2
  • Heli Peltola
    • 2
  • Xiao Zhou
    • 2
  • Hannu Väisänen
    • 2
  • Harri Strandman
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal ResearchEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations