Annals of Forest Science

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 99–108 | Cite as

Present and forecasted xeric climatic limits of beech and sessile oak distribution at low altitudes in Central Europe

  • Bálint Czúcz
  • László Gálhidy
  • Csaba Mátyás
Original paper

Abstract

Introduction

Xeric (trailing) forest range limits are particularly vulnerable to impacts of predicted climate change. Regional modelling studies contribute to the identification of potential local climatic threats and may support appropriate management strategies.

Methods

We carried out bioclimatic distribution modelling of two climate-dependent, dominant tree species, beech and sessile oak, to determine the most influential climatic variables limiting their distributions and to predict their climate-induced range shifts over the twenty-first century in the forest-steppe biome transition zone of Hungary. To exclude confounding effects of edaphic conditions, only data of zonal sites were evaluated.

Results

For both species, temperature and precipitation conditions in late spring and summer appear as principal variables determining the distribution, with beech particularly affected by summer drought. Projections from the applied fine-scale analysis and modelling results indicate that climate change may lead to drastic reduction in macroclimatically suitable sites for both forest types.

Conclusion

Regarding the stands in zonal position, 56–99% of present-day beech forests and 82–100% of sessile oak forests might be outside their present bioclimatic niche by 2050. Phenotypic plasticity, longevity, endurance of non-zonal stands and prudent human support may brighten these dire predictions. Nevertheless, an urgent adjustment of forest management and conservation strategies seems inevitable.

Keywords

Climate change Trailing edge Range retraction Aridity Ensemble modelling 

References

  1. Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, Gonzales P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim JH, 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. For Ecol Manage 259:660–684Google Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Whittaker RJ, Ladle RJ, Erhard M (2005) Reducing uncertainty in projections of extinction risk from climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:529–538Google Scholar
  3. Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont LJ, Pitman AJ, Poulsen M, Hughes L (2007) Where will species go? Incorporating new advances in climate modelling into projections of species distributions. Glob Change Biol 13:1368–1385Google Scholar
  5. Berki I, Rasztovits E, Móricz N, Mátyás Cs (2009) Determination of the drought tolerance limit of beech forests and forecasting their future distribution in Hungary. Cereal Res Commun 37:613–616Google Scholar
  6. Berry PM, Dawson TP, Harrison PA, Pearson RG (2002) Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and Ireland. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:453–462Google Scholar
  7. Benito Garzón M, De Sánchez Dios R, Sainz Ollero H (2008) Effects of climate change on the distribution of Iberian tree species. Appl Veg Sci 11:169–178Google Scholar
  8. Bolliger J, Kienast F, Zimmermann NE (2000) Risks of global warming on montane and subalpine forests in Switzerland—a modeling study. Reg Environ Change 1:99–111Google Scholar
  9. Bolte A, Czajkowski T, Kompa T (2007) The north-eastern distribution range of European beech—a review. Forestry 80(4):413–429Google Scholar
  10. Breiman L, Friedman J, Ohlsen R, Stone C (1984) Classification and regression trees. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A, Chen A, Gao X, Held I, Jones R, Kolli RK, Kwon W-T, Laprise R, Magaña Rueda V, Mearns L, Menéndez CG, Räisänen J, Rinke A, Sarr A, Whetton P, Regional Climate Projections et al (2007) In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M (eds) Climate change: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 747–845Google Scholar
  12. Czajkowski T, Kuhling M, Bolte A (2005) Einfluss der Sommertrockenheit im Jahre 2003 auf das Wachstum von Naturverjüngungen der Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) im nordöstlichen Mitteleuropa. Allg Forst- u J-Ztg 176:133–143Google Scholar
  13. Di Filippo A, Biondi F, Cufar K et al (2007) Bioclimatology of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in the Eastern Alps: spatial and altitudinal climatic signals identified through a tree-ring network. J Biogeogr 34:1873–1892Google Scholar
  14. Dittmar C, Zech W, Elling W (2003) Growth variations of common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under different climatic and environmental conditions in Europe—a dendroecological study. Forest Ecol Manag 173:63–78Google Scholar
  15. Dormann CF (2007) Promising the future? Global change projections of species distributions. Basic Appl Ecol 8:387–397Google Scholar
  16. Ellenberg H (1988) Vegetation ecology of Central Europe, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Fang J, Lechovicz MJ (2006) Climatic limits for the present distribution of beech (Fagus L.) species in the world. J Biogeogr 33:1804–1819Google Scholar
  18. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49Google Scholar
  19. Fischlin A, Midgley GF, Price JT, Leemans R, Gopal B, Turley C, Rounsevell MDA, Dube OP, Tarazona J, Velichko AA (2007) Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and services. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP et al (eds) Climate change: impacts adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 211–272Google Scholar
  20. Führer E, Járó Z (1992) Auswirkungen der Klimaaenderung auf die Waldbestaende Ungarns. Allg Forstztg 9:25–27Google Scholar
  21. Gea-Izquierdo G, Martín-Benito D, Cherubini P, Canellas I (2009) Climate–growth variability in Quercus ilex L west Iberian open woodlands of different stand density. Ann For Sci 66:802Google Scholar
  22. Goslee S.C., Dean L., The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data, J. Stat. Software 22 (2007) issue 7Google Scholar
  23. Hampe A, Petit RJ (2005) Conserving biodiversity under climate change: the rear edge matters. Ecol Lett 8:461–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hothorn T., Hornik K. Zeileis A. (2006a) Party: a laboratory for recursive partitioning. R package version 0.9-0. http://cran.r-project.org/doc/packages/party.pdf
  25. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comput Graph Stat 15:651–674Google Scholar
  26. Iverson LR, Prasad A (2001) Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosyst 4:186–199Google Scholar
  27. Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM (2007) Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either–or presence–absence. Acta Oecol 31:361–369Google Scholar
  28. Jump AS, Hunt JM, Penuelas J (2006) Rapid climate change-related growth decline at the southern range edge of Fagus sylvatica. Glob Change Biol 12:2163–2174Google Scholar
  29. Jump A, Mátyás Cs, Penuelas J (2009) The paradox of altitude for latitude comparisons in species range retractions (Review). Trends Ecol Evol 24(12):694–700. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.007 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kölling C (2007) Klimahüllen von 27 Waldbaumarten. AFZ Wald 23:1242–1244Google Scholar
  31. Koskela J, Teissier BA, du Cros E (eds) (2007) Climate change and forest genetic diversity: implications for sustainable forest management in Europe. Biodiversity International, RomeGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer K, Degen B, Buschboom J, Hickler T, Thuiller W, Sykes M, de Winter W (2010) Modelling exploration of the future of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under climate change—range, abundance, genetic diversity and adaptive response. Forest Ecol Manag 259(11):2213–2222. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.12.023 Google Scholar
  33. Lebourgeois F, Cousseau G, Ducos Y (2004) Climate-tree-growth relationships of a Quercus petraea Mill. stand in the Forest of Bercé (“Futaie des Clos”, Sarthe, France). Ann For Sci 61:361–372Google Scholar
  34. Lebourgeois F, Bréda N, Ulrich E, Granier A (2005) Climate-tree-growth relationships of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in the French Permanent Plot Network (RENECOFOR). Trees Struct Funct 19:385–401Google Scholar
  35. Legendre P, Fortin MJ (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80(2):107–138Google Scholar
  36. Lenoir J, Gégout JC, Pierrat JC, Bontemps JD, Dhote JF (2009) Differences between tree species seedling and adult altitudinal distribution in mountain forests during the recent warm period (1986–2006). Ecography 32:765–777Google Scholar
  37. Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Ecology 38:921–931Google Scholar
  38. Mátyás C (2007) What do field trials tell about the future use of forest reproductive material. In: Koskela J, Buck A, du Teissier Cros E (eds) Climate change and forest genetic diversity: implications for sustainable forest management in Europe. Biodiversity International, Rome, pp 53–69Google Scholar
  39. Mátyás C, Vendramin GG, Fady B (2009) Forests at the limit: evolutionary–genetic consequences of environmental changes at the receding (xeric) edge of distribution. Ann For Sci 66:800–803Google Scholar
  40. Mátyás C (2010) Forecasts needed for retreating forests (Opinion). Nature 464:1271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Monserud RA, Leemans R (1992) Comparing global vegetation maps with the kappa statistic. Ecol Model 62:275–293Google Scholar
  43. Ohlemüller R, Gritti ES, Sykes MT, Thomas CD (2006) Quantifying components of risk for European woody species under climate change. Glob Change Biol 12:1788–1799Google Scholar
  44. Penuelas J, Ogaya R, Boada M, Jump AS (2007) Migration, invasion and decline: changes in recruitment and forest structure in a warming-linked shift of European beech forest in Catalonia (NE Spain). Ecography 30:829–837Google Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  46. Raftoyannis Y, Radoglou K (2002) Physiological responses of beech and sessile oak in a natural mixed stand during a dry summer. Ann Bot 89:723–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rehfeldt GE, Tchebakova NM, Milyutin LI, Parfenova EI, Wykoff WR, Kouzmina NA (2003) Assessing population responses to climate in Pinus silvestris and Larix spp. of Eurasia with climate transfer models. Euras J For Res 6:83–98Google Scholar
  48. Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M. et al. (2007) (eds) Climate change: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Sykes MT, Prentice IC, Cramer W (1996) A bioclimatic model for the potential distributions of north European tree species under present and future climates. J Biogeogr 23:203–233Google Scholar
  50. Thuiller W, Vayreda J, Pino J, Sabate S, Lavorel S, Gracia C (2003) Large-scale environmental correlates of forest tree distributions in Catalonia (NE Spain). Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12(4):313–325Google Scholar
  51. Thuiller W, Albert C, Araújo MB, Berry PM, Cabeza M, Guisan A, Hickler T, Midgley GF, Paterson J, Schurr FM, Sykes MT, Zimmermann NE (2008) Predicting global change impacts on plant species’ distributions: future challenges. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Systemat 9:137–152Google Scholar
  52. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2009) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:3–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bálint Czúcz
    • 1
  • László Gálhidy
    • 2
  • Csaba Mátyás
    • 3
  1. 1.Hungarian Academy of SciencesInstitute of Ecology and BotanyVácrátótHungary
  2. 2.WWF-HungaryBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Institute of Environment and Earth SciencesUniversity of West Hungary, Faculty of ForestrySopronHungary

Personalised recommendations