Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 1461–1472 | Cite as

Bending the carbon curve: fire management for carbon resilience under climate change

  • E. L. LoudermilkEmail author
  • R. M. Scheller
  • P. J. Weisberg
  • Alec Kretchun
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Forest landscapes are increasingly managed for fire resilience, particularly in the western US which has recently experienced drought and widespread, high-severity wildfires. Fuel reduction treatments have been effective where fires coincide with treated areas. Fuel treatments also have the potential to reduce drought-mortality if tree density is uncharacteristically high, and to increase long-term carbon storage by reducing high-severity fire probability.

Objective

Assess whether fuel treatments reduce fire intensity and spread and increase carbon storage under climate change.

Methods

We used a simulation modeling approach that couples a landscape model of forest disturbance and succession with an ecosystem model of carbon dynamics (Century), to quantify the interacting effects of climate change, fuel treatments and wildfire for carbon storage potential in a mixed-conifer forest in the western USA.

Results

Our results suggest that fuel treatments have the potential to ‘bend the C curve’, maintaining carbon resilience despite climate change and climate-related changes to the fire regime. Simulated fuel treatments resulted in reduced fire spread and severity. There was partial compensation of C lost during fuel treatments with increased growth of residual stock due to greater available soil water, as well as a shift in species composition to more drought- and fire-tolerant Pinus jeffreyi at the expense of shade-tolerant, fire-susceptible Abies concolor.

Conclusions

Forest resilience to global change can be achieved through management that reduces drought stress and supports the establishment and dominance of tree species that are more fire- and drought-resistant, however, achieving a net C gain from fuel treatments may take decades.

Keywords

Carbon Wildfire Climate change Fuel treatments Resilience Lake Tahoe Basin Simulation modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Lake Tahoe Basin agency personnel who participated in workshops and provided data and guidance throughout the project. We also thank Alison Stanton, consultant at South Lake Tahoe, CA, Jian Yang, scientist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tom Dilts, spatial analyst at the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada-Reno, and Carl Skinner, geographer at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service for their hard work and support throughout this project. Funding was provided by the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (Grant No. 10 DG-11272170-038), Bureau of Lands Management (P049, P086) and in part by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program of the Department of Defense (RC-2243). We thank the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA, USA, for their support.

References

  1. Agee JK, Skinner CN (2005) Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For Ecol Manag 211:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anning AK, McCarthy BC (2013) Competition, size and age affect tree growth response to fuel reduction treatments in mixed-oak forests of Ohio. For Ecol Manag 307:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachelet D, Neilson RP, Lenihan JM, Drapek RJ (2001) Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the United States. Ecosystems 4:164–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentz BJ, Régnière J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes JL, Hicke JA, Kelsey RG, Negrón JF, Seybold SJ (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60:602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bright B, Hicke J, Hudak A (2012) Landscape-scale analysis of aboveground tree carbon stocks affected by mountain pine beetles in Idaho. Environ Res Lett 7:045702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell JL, Ager AA (2013) Forest wildfire, fuel reduction treatments, and landscape carbon stocks: A sensitivity analysis. J Environ Manag 121:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell JL, Harmon ME, Mitchell SR (2012) Can fuel-reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western US by reducing future fire emissions? Front Ecol Environ 10:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolanc CR, Thorne JH, Safford HD (2013) Widespread shifts in the demographic structure of subalpine forests in the Sierra Nevada, California, 1934 to 2007. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duveneck MJ, Scheller RM, White MA, Handler S, Ravenscroft C (2014) Climate change effects to northeastern Minnesota and Northern Lower Michigan forests: a case for preserving diversity. Ecosphere 5:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elkin C, Giuggiola A, Rigling A, Bugmann H (2015) Short-and long-term efficacy of forest thinning to mitigate drought impacts in mountain forests in the European Alps. Ecol Appl 25:1083–1098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Finney MA, McHugh CW, Grenfell IC (2005) Stand-and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Can J For Res 35:1714–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goward SN, Masek JG, Cohen W, Moisen G, Collatz GJ, Healey S, Houghton R, Huang C, Kennedy R, Law B (2008) Forest disturbance and North American carbon flux. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union 89:105–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen AJ, Neilson RR, Dale VH, Flather CH, Iverson LR, Currie DJ, Shafer S, Cook R, Bartlein PJ (2001) Global change in forests: responses of species, communities, and biomes. BioScience 51:765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hicke JA, Allen CD, Desai AR, Dietze MC, Hall RJ, Kashian DM, Moore D, Raffa KF, Sturrock RN, Vogelmann J (2012) Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Glob Change Biol 18:7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins PAT, Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH (2002) Dynamics of climate and ecosystem coupling: abrupt changes and multiple equilibria. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 357:647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurteau M, North M (2009) Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front Ecol Environ 7:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hurteau MD, Koch GW, Hungate BA (2008) Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Front Ecol Environ 6:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karam SL, Weisberg PJ, Scheller RM, Johnson DW, Miller WW (2013) Development and evaluation of a nutrient cycling extension for the LANDIS-II landscape simulation model. Ecol Model 250:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kent LLY, Shive KL, Strom BA, Sieg CH, Hunter ME, Stevens-Rumann CS, Fulé PZ (2015) Interactions of fuel treatments, wildfire severity, and carbon dynamics in dry conifer forests. For Ecol Manag 349:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koca D, Smith B, Sykes MT (2006) Modelling regional climate change effects on potential natural ecosystems in Sweden. Clim Change 78:381–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolb T, Agee J, Fule P, McDowell N, Pearson K, Sala A, Waring R (2007) Perpetuating old Ponderosa Pine. For Ecol Manag 249:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kretchun AM, Loudermilk EL, Scheller RM, Hurteau MD, Belmecheri S (2016) Climate and bark beetle effects on forest productivity—linking dendroecology with forest landscape modeling. Can J For Res 46:1026–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurz WA, Dymond CC, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Neilson ET, Carroll AL, Ebata T, Safranyik L (2008) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452:987–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Laflower DM, Hurteau MD, Koch GW, North MP, Hungate BA (2016) Climate-driven changes in forest succession and the influence of management on forest carbon dynamics in the Puget Lowlands of Washington State, USA. For Ecol Manag 362:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Law BE, Turner D, Campbell J, Sun OJ, Van Tuyl S, Ritts WD, Cohen WB (2004) Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks and fluxes across western Oregon USA. Glob Change Biol 10:1429–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenihan JM, Drapek R, Bachelet D, Neilson RP (2003) Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecol Appl 13:1667–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Littell JS, McKenzie D, Peterson DL, Westerling AL (2009) Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecol Appl 19:1003–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu Z, Wimberly MC (2016) Direct and indirect effects of climate change on projected future fire regimes in the western United States. Sci Total Environ 542:65–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Loudermilk EL, Kretchun AM, Scheller RM, Hurteau MD, Weisberg PJ, Skinner C, Belmecheri S (2012) Final report: drought stress and bark beetle outbreaks in the future forest: extending an existing model to inform climate change adaptation. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Tahoe Center for Environmental Studies, Incline VillageGoogle Scholar
  30. Loudermilk EL, Kretchun AM, Scheller RM, Hurteau MD, Weisberg PJ, Skinner C, Belmecheri S (2014a) Final report: drought stress and bark beetle outbreaks in the future forest: extending an existing model to inform climate change adaptation. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Tahoe Center for Environmental Studies, Incline VillageGoogle Scholar
  31. Loudermilk EL, Scheller RM, Weisberg PJ, Yang J, Dilts TE, Karam SL, Skinner C (2013) Carbon dynamics in the future forest: the importance of long-term successional legacy and climate–fire interactions. Glob Change Biol 19:3502–3515Google Scholar
  32. Loudermilk EL, Stanton A, Scheller RM, Dilts TE, Weisberg PJ, Skinner C, Yang J (2014b) Effectiveness of fuel treatments for mitigating wildfire risk and sequestering forest carbon: a case study in the Lake Tahoe Basin. For Ecol Manag 323:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Edenhofer O, Stocker TF, Field CB, Ebi KL, Matschoss PR (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim Change 108:675–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell SR, Harmon ME, O’Connell KEB (2009) Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 19:643–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. North MP, Hurteau MD (2011) High-severity wildfire effects on carbon stocks and emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest. For Ecol Manag 261:1115–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. North MP, Stine P, O’Hara K, Zielinski W, Stephens S (2009) An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220Google Scholar
  37. Parker TJ, Clancy KM, Mathiasen RL (2006) Interactions among fire, insects and pathogens in coniferous forests of the interior western United States and Canada. Agric For Entomol 8:167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parton WJ, Anderson DW, Cole CV, Steward JWB (1983) Simulation of soil organic matter formation and mineralization in semiarid agroecosystems. In: Lowrance RR, Todd RL, Asmussen LE, Leonard RA (eds) Nutrient cycling in agricultural ecosystems. The University of Georgia, College of Agriculture Experiment Stations, AthensGoogle Scholar
  39. Parton WJ, Ojima DS, Cole CV, Schimel DS (1994) A general model for soil organic matters dynamics: sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. In: Quantitative modeling of soil forming processes: proceedings of a symposium sponsored by Divisions S-5 and S-9 of the Soil Science Society of America. Soil Science Society of America, Minneapolis, pp 147–167Google Scholar
  40. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005) The wildland–urban interface in the United States. Ecol Appl 15:799–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reinhardt ED, Keane RE, Calkin DE, Cohen JD (2008) Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. For Ecol Manag 256:1997–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Restaino JC, Peterson DL (2013) Wildfire and fuel treatment effects on forest carbon dynamics in the western United States. For Ecol Manag 303:46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers JH (1974) Soil survey Tahoe Basin Area: California and Nevada. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Safford HD, Schmidt DA, Carlson CH (2009) Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland–urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. For Ecol Manag 258:773–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Safford HD, Stevens J, Merriam K, Meyer M, Latimer A (2012) Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. For Ecol Manag 274:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scheller RM, Hua D, Bolstad PV, Birdsey RA, Mladenoff DJ (2011) The effects of forest harvest intensity in combination with wind disturbance on carbon dynamics in Lake States mesic forests. Ecol Model 222:144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. Glob Change Biol 11:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmidt DA, Taylor AH, Skinner CN (2008) The influence of fuels treatment and landscape arrangement on simulated fire behavior, Southern Cascade range, California. For Ecol Manag 255:3170–3184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scholze M, Knorr W, Arnell NW, Prentice IC (2006) A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:13116–13120CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Stephens SL, Collins BM, Roller G (2012) Fuel treatment longevity in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. For Ecol Manag 285:204–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stephens SL, Moghaddas JJ, Edminster C, Fiedler CE, Haase S, Harrington M, Keeley JE, Knapp EE, McIver JD, Metlen K (2009) Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western US forests. Ecol Appl 19:305–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sturtevant BR, Scheller RM, Miranda BR, Shinneman D (2009) Simulating dynamic and mixed-severity fire regimes: a process-based fire extension for LANDIS-II. Ecol Model 220:3380–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Syphard AD, Scheller RM, Ward BC, Spencer WD, Strittholt JR (2011) Simulating landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada, California. Int J Wildland Fire 20:364–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Gunst KJ, Weisberg PJ, Yang J, Fan Y (2016) Do denser forests have greater risk of tree mortality: A remote sensing analysis of density-dependent forest mortality. For Ecol Manag 359:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Mantgem PJ, Stephenson NL, Byrne JC, Daniels LD, Franklin JF, Fule PZ, Harmon ME, Larson AJ, Smith JM, Taylor AH, Veblen TT (2009) Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science 323:521–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Winford EM, Gaither JC (2012) Carbon outcomes from fuels treatment and bioenergy production in a Sierra Nevada forest. For Ecol Manag 282:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang J, Weisberg PJ, Dilts TE, Loudermilk EL, Scheller RM, Stanton A, Skinner C (2015) Predicting wildfire occurrence distribution with spatial point process models and its uncertainty assessment: a case study in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Int J Wildland Fire 24:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. L. Loudermilk
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. M. Scheller
    • 2
  • P. J. Weisberg
    • 3
  • Alec Kretchun
    • 2
  1. 1.Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Center for Forest Disturbance ScienceUSDA Forest ServiceAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science and ManagementPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ScienceUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations