Advertisement

Current Forestry Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 53–68 | Cite as

Forest Productivity Under Environmental Change—a Review of Stand-Scale Modeling Studies

  • Christopher Reyer
Modelling Productivity and Function (M Kirschbaum, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Modelling Productivity and Function

Abstract

Climate change, including increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), nitrogen deposition, and recovery from past management have led to changes in forest productivity in many parts of the world. Process-based forest models have been widely used to project productivity changes under changing environmental conditions into the future. Based on a review of published simulation results from a large number of process-based models, a synthesis of impacts of environmental change on forest productivity and carbon pools is presented. This synthesis shows that most stand-scale process-based model studies have been carried out in temperate and boreal forests, focusing mostly on monospecific forests with tree species that are relevant for forestry and on analyses of the impacts of climate change and of increasing [CO2] rather than that of other environmental drivers. Forest productivity and biomass carbon pools in these forests mainly respond positively to environmental change especially if the effects of increasing [CO2] are included. If climate change is considered in isolation 61 % of the simulations show positive responses, but 35 % of the simulations show decreasing forest productivity and declining biomass carbon pools. Boreal forests mostly become more productive and sequester more carbon under climate change and increasing [CO2], while temperate and especially Mediterranean forests show more mixed responses depending on the importance of individual environmental driving variables. It is recommended that future modeling studies should increasingly strive to incorporate mixed stands and tropical forests, and include other environmental drivers besides climate and [CO2] to better capture the totality of future changes in forest productivity and carbon pools.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide Climate change Nitrogen Ozone Process-based models 

Introduction

In past decades, ground-based measurements and satellite data have indicated shifts in forest productivity in all major forest biomes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. These observations have been attributed not only to environmental change such as increasing nitrogen (N) deposition, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations ([CO2]) and climate change but also to changing management practices (e.g., [8, 9]. Recent analyses have shown that N depositions indeed have a fertilizing effect on forest productivity and increase carbon sequestration [10, 11, 12]. There is also evidence that increasing [CO2] enhances photosynthesis and water-use efficiency, although it is unclear how strongly this ultimately affects productivity [13, 14]. In addition, climate has been identified as a major control of forest productivity throughout the world as evidenced by analysis of dendrochronological (e.g., [15]), observational [12, 16], flux [17], and satellite [4, 18] data. Increasing temperature directly affects tree productivity through its effects on growth temperatures [19] and indirectly in combination with precipitation through its effects on growing season length [20, 21] and soil water status. All these environmental factors interact with each other and with other environmental variables such as ozone (O3) in complex and multiple ways [22, 23]. They also vary regionally, and more detailed reviews of the effects of environmental change on forest processes are available [23, 24, 25]. It is crucial for many forest ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration or timber production as well as for forests’ adaptation to climate change to determine how forest productivity will change under projections of future environmental change.

Besides observing effects of environmental change on forest productivity, which, by definition, can only detect past changes, and carrying out experiments, which are usually limited in forests due to the large spatial and temporal scales involved in setting up experiments with trees, models can be used to analyze and project forest productivity under environmental change. An advantage of a modeling approach is that, by integrating knowledge from observations and experiments, they allow hypotheses to be generated and tested; they can include many environmental drivers and analyze influences of individual drivers over long time periods and under many different environmental change scenarios. However, this flexibility comes at the cost of simplifying the system to a degree that essential responses and feedbacks may be lost. Furthermore, model-based projections of the effects of environmental change suffer from several types of uncertainties (e.g., [26•]), which need to be accounted for when interpreting the results of model projections [27]. Summarizing the results of several models allows an evaluation of the consistency of model results across different model structures.

Therefore, the objective of this paper was to review published stand-scale process-based model projections of changes in forest productivity and carbon pools driven by environmental change. The intention of the paper was not to explain the individual models’ results in terms of the underlying processes or the ways the models are constructed nor to judge the models’ quality. Although it is clear that the models considered here have different structures, use different input data, and scenarios of environmental change, it was assumed that general patterns of changes in forest productivity under environmental change will transcend these methodological differences.

Model Types for Simulating Climate Change Impacts on Forests

There are many model types that have been used for simulating the impacts of changing environmental conditions on forests [28••], and much progress has been made since the early reviews of Agren et al. [29] and Shugart et al. [30] of such models. Gap-type models (see [31]) capture long-term forest dynamics but have been criticized for oversimplifying tree growth responses to climatic variables [32, 33]. Purely empirical models that rely on statistical relationships cannot be extrapolated to novel environmental conditions, which were not used for model fitting. Process-based models (PBMs) are most suitable for environmental change studies since they combine changes in environmental variables with plant responses to this change in a mechanistic way [34, 35, 36•]. Stand-scale PBMs simulate the impact of environmental drivers on forest stands and provide detailed physiological and structural output. They require detailed input data for model initialization [36•], and their mostly species-specific parameters can be derived from physiological measurements [35]. This level of detail allows the models to be used for estimating sustainable forest management indicators [37] and at the same time differentiates them from process-based dynamic global vegetation models or global biogeochemical models that simulate global or regional responses to environmental change for different plant functional types only [38].

Stand-scale PBMs thus represent system dynamics and processes at spatial and (to a limited extent) temporal scales similar to observational studies (e.g., eddy-covariance flux towers or intensive monitoring plots), which have been intensively used to study past and current impacts of environmental change on forest productivity (see review [9]). It is important to emphasize that they represent physiological responses to environmental drivers at the local scale and only seldom integrate processes that occur at the landscape scale such as disturbances (e.g., storms or insect outbreaks). Although PBMs, as defined here, usually work at similar spatial scales and include similar processes (e.g., photosynthesis, allocation, etc.), the level of detail in process description, temporal resolution, and way of coupling different processes can differ drastically between them. PBMs can be used either as diagnostic tools to disentangle the importance of individual environmental drivers on forest productivity in the past (e.g., [39, 40, 41]) or to generate projections of future forest productivity under environmental change (e.g., [42]). The latter can also be carried out in an experimental set-up by varying environmental drivers individually and in combinations (e.g., [43]). While such an approach enables an assessment of the relative contribution of environmental drivers to the model result, simulations combining important drivers represent the most comprehensive assessments of environmental change on forests. The change in environmental drivers can be gradual, simulating transient change (e.g., [44]), or stepwise (e.g., [45]). Thus, even within this narrowly defined model type of stand-scale PBMs, there is a broad variety of approaches towards simulating forest productivity under environmental change, which allows for an assessment of the robustness of model results over a broad range of models.

Literature Review

This review focuses on studies simulating individual forest stands with process-based models, excluding purely gap and hybrid/empirical models. This selection concurs broadly with the model types 1 and 2 (i.e., stand-scale, process-based models and biogeochemical models) as defined by Medlyn et al. [28••]. It focuses on mechanistic models applied at the stand scale without considering changing species composition. Another important criterion for the selection of studies was that model output on changes in forest productivity and carbon pools should be available for individual stands. Studies that simulated individual stands but reported only aggregated values for several stands or for an entire region were excluded. If the same set of simulations was used in several papers (e.g., under different viewpoints or response variables), only the main study was considered to avoid double-counting of the same model simulations. Different versions of the same model were accounted for by recording the names of different model versions if specified in the publications. To analyze the papers, the following information was extracted: general information (species, type of change of driving variables (stepwise or transient), model name, and biome), the driving variables (i.e., climate change (consisting of increasing temperature and/or changing precipitation), [CO2], N, O3, and their combinations) and the respective response variable for each simulation. In this study, only response variables that relate to forest carbon pools (e.g., volume, wood carbon) and to forest productivity (e.g., stem increment, net primary production (NPP)) were included, and no distinction was made between studies reporting carbon content or fresh biomass, etc. Although for this review, it makes sense to pool different response variables to some extent, it is important to note that different response variables describe different characteristics of a forest stand. For example, higher photosynthesis does not necessarily translate into higher tree growth [46]. However, analyzing different response variables together seems appropriate in the context of this review, since there are relationships between biomass and productivity [47, 48] and also between various variables of forest productivity (e.g., [49]). Disturbances are another important environmental driver. They can strongly affect forest biomass and carbon stocks [49, 50] and the productivity to biomass relationship. However, they had to be excluded from the analysis because they are only integrated to a very limited degree in stand-scale PBMs (e.g., [51]). Moreover, results of simulation experiments that featured different management types or intensities under changing environmental conditions were included, but these were not analyzed separately from simulations of unmanaged forests. Effects of forest management and age structure can be very important for forest productivity and carbon pools (e.g., in the USA [52, 53, 55, 56, but see [54]). However, they vary regionally and depend to a large extent on socioeconomic factors such as wood prices, agricultural policies, and demographic developments. Thus, these different management scenarios were interpreted as a variation of stand conditions that will still be influenced by changing environmental variables. The analysis thereby excludes adaptive forest management that may be implemented to cope with the changes in productivity induced by environmental change. Moreover, simulations reporting results from mixed forests at the individual species level were included if these were presented as individual simulations or at the forest level if one model simulation included several species.

To ensure comparability, relative changes of response variables were calculated for all simulations with respect to the baseline scenario of each study. Hence, changes “relative to baseline conditions” were reported throughout this paper. All figures were produced using the statistical software R [57].

Overview of Model Simulations

In total, 74 studies were reviewed. They were mostly restricted to temperate and boreal forests in the northern hemisphere, especially Europe and Northern America (Fig. 1a, Appendix Table 1). Only two studies were found for the Tropics in Asia, and none for South-America or Africa. The 74 studies represented 1209 single simulations runs carried out with 55 different models or model versions. More than 50 % of the simulations looked at the coniferous genera Pinus (30 %) and Picea (22 %). The broad-leaved genera Betula (12 %), Fagus (9 %), and Quercus (7 %) made up almost another third of the simulations. Most of the studies assumed a changing climate (temperature and/or precipitation) and/or increasing [CO2], but only few considered changes in N deposition and O3 (Appendix Table 1). Roughly 56 % of the simulations analyzed the effect of stepwise changes of environmental change drivers in their scenarios, whereas the remaining simulations featured transient responses (44 %).
Fig. 1

Qualitative future changes in forest productivity (circles) and carbon pools (triangles) under environmental change for a all studies reviewed in this paper, b those studies considering climate change and increasing [CO2] in conjunction, and c those studies considering only climate change. The color scheme indicates the proportion of simulations at each stand resulting in positive or negative changes of forest productivity and carbon pools under environmental change, while the size of the points indicates the number of models applied (small = 1 model, medium = 2 models, large = 3 models, very large > 3 models). Six simulations have been excluded from b and c since they do not include climate change and/or [CO2] at all

The direction of change of the response to environmental change was positive for 79 %, negative for 19 %, and none for 2 % of all simulations reviewed here (Appendix Table 1). The proportion of positive and negative responses per studied site showed a distinct geographical pattern. For most studies in the boreal forests, the responses were positive, whereas the response was mixed in temperate and Mediterranean forests (Fig. 1a). There were 333 simulations that considered a changing climate (i.e., increasing temperatures and changing precipitation) without changes in [CO2]. Thereof, 61 % showed positive, 35 % negative, and 3 % no changes (Fig. 1c). A greater number of simulations (870) had been run with a changing climate and increasing [CO2]. Here, 87 % of the simulations were positive, 12 % negative, and 1 % not changing (Fig. 1b). Only six simulation runs did not consider climate change or increasing [CO2] at all but the effects of N (five simulations with positive responses) and O3 (one simulation with negative responses) individually. In the remaining simulations that included N and O3 as driving variables, the reported responses were always confounded with climate change and/or [CO2] scenarios.

Since changes in climate and [CO2] are gradually changing and not stepwise, a subset of the full dataset was extracted, which only included those simulations in which climate change, [CO2], and their combination changed in a transient way, and in which it was possible to calculate changes relative to baseline conditions. This selection resulted in 525 simulations from 23 models and 40 different studies. These simulations showed distinct changes in forest productivity and carbon pools under environmental change in different biomes (Fig. 2). Whereas the response in boreal forests was mostly positive, it was less clear in temperate and especially Mediterranean forests, although the median response was positive even in those regions. While for boreal forests, the change in forest productivity and carbon pools relative to baseline conditions varied from −11 to 75 % (up to 148 %), the change varied from −45 to 67 % (up to 115 %) and from −52 to 77 % (up to 217 %) in temperate and Mediterranean forests, respectively (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Changes in forest productivity and carbon pools under different environmental change scenarios in three biomes (boreal: simulations = 305, models = 12, studies 26; temperate: simulations = 142, models = 10, studies = 12; Mediterranean: simulations = 78, models = 4, studies = 4). The horizontal gray line indicates no change compared to the baseline scenario. The boxplots show the following information: thick line median, bottom and top of the box 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers maximum value or 1.5 times the interquartile range of the data depending on which is smaller. Points outliers larger than 1.5 times interquartile range

To synthesize the effects of climate change, [CO2], and their combination on the changes in biomass and productivity relative to baseline conditions, the transient simulations in terms of driving environmental change variables were pooled (Fig. 3). The effects of a changing climate investigated separately from increasing [CO2] led to both positive and negative changes in forest productivity and carbon pools relative to baseline conditions ranging from −20 to 33 % including several negative and positive outliers. In contrast, the simulations including only the effects of increasing [CO2] always resulted in positive changes (from 2 to 58 % with one larger outlier). When climate change effects and increasing [CO2] were simulated in combination, most of the simulations showed positive changes in forest productivity and carbon pools relative to baseline conditions (with several outliers showing very strong positive changes).
Fig. 3

Changes in forest productivity and carbon pools under different drivers of global change. Climate change changing temperature and precipitation, [CO 2 ] increasing atmospheric CO2, Climate change + [CO 2 ] combination of climate change and [CO2] (climate change: simulations = 137, models = 15, studies = 19; [CO2]: simulations = 48, models = 11, studies = 12; climate change + [CO2]: simulations = 340, models = 17, studies = 31). The gray line and boxplots are as in Fig. 2

It is important to note that the data shown on Figs. 2 and 3 might only appear skewed towards positive changes because they are expressed on a linear scale (i.e., percentage changes can reach very high positive values while negative changes cannot exceed −100 %). When data were displayed on a proportional scale using log transformation, it showed, however, that the skew towards positive productivity changes still remained although the general picture with positive and negative outliers became more balanced (results not shown).

Discussion of Model Simulations

The analysis presented here reveals several important foci of current efforts to model the effects of environmental change on forest productivity and carbon pools at the stand scale. Firstly, there is a clear regional focus on temperate and boreal forests in North America and Europe. The literature review did not reveal any study in South America and Africa matching the selection criteria, although there is strong—and partly conflicting—evidence that forest productivity is changing in these regions as well (e.g., [58, 59] but [5, 60]), and detailed model simulations are urgently needed.

Secondly, the forest types described by detailed stand-scale process-based models are mostly restricted to mono-specific forests and tree species that are relevant for forestry. Forests types and species that are more important for other ecosystem functions and services such as mixed forests with high biodiversity value are only rarely addressed. This imbalance in plot and forest type selection can be partly explained by the large amount of physiological and environmental data that is necessary to initialize and drive PBMs and which is mostly available from long-term and intensive monitoring plots, which usually have been installed in typical, representative forests of a region. Such forests are often then also managed for timber production or at least heavily influenced by past management decisions such as species choice and silvicultural regime.

Thirdly, the assessment of the different environmental drivers being covered reveals a focus on climate change and increasing [CO2]. Few studies looked at other drivers such as N or O3 (especially not in isolation) although these have been identified as important drivers of forest change [61, 62]. This selection bias may be less important since, for example, the effect of N is considered to be comparably low in the future [63]. Nonetheless, it would still be important to assess and test this finding with forest models.

Having this in mind, this paper shows that most of the responses of forest productivity and carbon pools to the different environmental change drivers and their combinations were always positive when only increasing [CO2] was considered and mostly positive when climate change and increasing [CO2] were combined. If only climate change was considered, 61 % of the simulations still showed positive responses, but 35 % also showed negative responses. This highlights the importance of the effects of increasing [CO2] on plant productivity in the models by enhancing photosynthesis and water use ([13, 14; see also discussion of the inclusion of [CO2] effects in models by Reyer et al. [64]). There is increasing observational and experimental evidence that the strength and persistence of the [CO2] effect may be limited or overridden by a lack of N, physiological acclimation to higher [CO2], or droughts [65, 66] and whether studied at the leaf, canopy, or landscape scale [67]. These effects are often not fully accounted for in models (see also [36•, 64, 68]), and thus, model simulations may overestimate the productivity responses to increasing [CO2]. At the same time, a recent analysis argues that mesophyll diffusion is not properly captured in the most common photosynthesis models, and therefore, the [CO2] effect may actually be underestimated [69].

The positive response in model simulations for boreal forests is consistent with ground-based and satellite measurements [1, 8, 9, 18, 24, 60] and with the current understanding that temperature is a strongly limiting factor of forest productivity. Increasing temperatures and a concomitant lengthening of the growing season as well as increasing nutrient availability (through decomposition and mineralization) exert a positive effect on forest productivity [19, 70, 71]. If, under climate change, water becomes a more limiting factor, photosynthesis and subsequent stem volume production may be reduced [72].

These mechanisms are also relevant in temperate forests, but there is evidence that a broader variety of environmental conditions controls productivity in these systems (e.g., [73, 74, 75]). This variability and increased vulnerability to drier and warmer conditions seem to be reflected by the larger amount of negative changes in forest productivity and carbon pools relative to baseline conditions in the dataset presented here. In Mediterranean conditions, drier and warmer conditions in recent decades have strongly influenced forest conditions and growth [76, 77, 78]. While this sensitivity is supported by some of the simulations yielding negative changes in forest productivity and carbon pools in the dataset presented here, a majority of the simulations actually show positive changes even in the Mediterranean region, which contradicts the common expectation of growth decline under climate change.

This finding is strongly related to the importance of [CO2] in the models and the climate change scenarios used in the simulations. Under water shortages, the most important effect of elevated [CO2] is decreased stomatal conductance, which leads to enhanced water use efficiency [22, 79]. However, recent carbon isotope tree ring studies have shown that this effect has not been translated into increased tree growth but may have been overridden by drought, warming, N limitation, or physiological adjustments, which may not be sufficiently covered in the models [60, 66, 80]. Interestingly, those simulations in the Mediterranean in the dataset presented here that were run without including the effects of elevated [CO2] (i.e., [81, 82] project exclusively negative changes in forest productivity and carbon pools relative to baseline conditions.

One other important issue is that the summary of responses reviewed here does not differentiate between soil and biomass carbon. Actually, there are only four studies that explicitly consider soil variables (Appendix Table 1); hence, most of the results presented here are valid for the responses of vegetation only. In reality, increasing productivity from higher temperatures or [CO2] can lead to higher N demand, which may lead to reduced soil N availability and reduced productivity unless soil N mineralization itself will be strongly stimulated by higher temperatures [24]. Results from model applications confirm that soil and vegetation responses to climate change can be opposite, i.e., increasing productivity but decreasing soil carbon (e.g., [83]).

In summary, the review of available stand-scale forest simulations with process-based models shows a mostly positive response of boreal forests to climate change and increasing [CO2], which is mostly consistent with expectations from observations, experiments, larger-scale modeling efforts, and theory, while temperate and Mediterranean forests show more mixed responses. These findings are consistent over different models with different model structures. They highlight the regional differentiation of climate change effects on forest productivity and carbon pools (increasing if temperature-limited and decreasing if water-limited) in contrast to a general positive effect of increasing [CO2]. This regional differentiation is consistent with findings from recent stand-scale carbon isotope studies [60]. In general, the results presented here are also consistent with model applications at more regional or even global scale [42, 84, 85].

Limitations of Model Simulations

The studies presented here do not consider the impacts of altered disturbances regimes and extreme events such as fire, insects, or storms on forest productivity and carbon pools, which may limit or reverse positive effects of climate change already at lower degrees of warming (e.g., [50, 86]). It is also unclear to which degree PBMs include higher-order interactions such as higher growth rates that lead to decreased longevity [87, 88] and nonlinear responses to change or extreme events [64, 68]. The latter are probably more important predictors of forest productivity and carbon pools (e.g., [18]) than mean climate [16].

Moreover, this review did not evaluate the models regarding their quality or ability to precisely describe relevant processes but assumed that the models are equally good and independent. This is a common but not unchallenged assumption in model comparison studies [28••, 89]. In reality, the models are not fully independent since they share submodels for specific processes such as the description of photosynthesis. Additionally, some models are more widely used than others, have more published applications, or more simulations per application so that they may be overrepresented in the dataset presented here. Moreover, weighting the model simulations by their ability to simulate observed data could help to quantify uncertainties but would require more synchronized model comparisons (e.g., [90•,] which was beyond the scope of this synthesis. The formulation of different processes in the models was not analyzed, which would explain the results of each individual model because this has been done in an exemplary way elsewhere [28••].

Conclusions

This paper shows that stand-scale process-based models are able to capture the broad regional variety of responses of forest productivity and carbon pools in response to climate change and elevated [CO2]. The models agree on mostly positive responses in boreal forests but show more mixed responses in temperate and Mediterranean forests depending on the importance of individual environmental variables in the model simulations. These broad, overall responses transcend the variability of data sets, time frames, assumptions, etc. that are made in the different models. However, uncertainties remain regarding these responses as a result of different model structures, site conditions, magnitudes of environmental change considered, and the long-term persistence of [CO2] effects. It is important to note that the studies reviewed here cover the physiological response to environmental change, but that there is a possibility that at larger spatial scales, the effects of disturbances and management regimes shape the state of forest ecosystems. This paper provides a synthesis of published model-based changes in forest productivity and carbon pools with which the results of future studies can be compared. Furthermore, this paper serves to inform regional studies that strive to integrate changes in forest productivity and carbon pools with disturbances or socioeconomic drivers to, for example, develop adaptive management strategies. The results of this review can be refined by more structured model intercomparisons with improved stand-scale process-based models.

This synthesis also found that past modeling efforts have largely focused on species that are important for forestry, particular biomes, and prominent environmental variables. This is partly due to constraints in data availability to parameterize complex process-based models. Nevertheless, further studies may exploit newly available datasets as well as data integration and uncertainty quantification techniques to cover a larger array of forest stands, species, biomes, and environmental drivers and thus different ecosystem services and functions and corresponding challenges for sustainable management. Moreover, further studies could make better use of the strengths that differentiate modeling approaches from observational and experimental studies: to simulate the effects of a multitude of single environmental drivers and their combinations in full factorial designs in a transient way. In general, however, it is encouraging to see that many valuable and complex models exist, which allow us to explore the distant futures of forests in times of rapidly changing environmental and societal conditions.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was funded by the EU research project MOTIVE (grant agreement no. 226544) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant no. 01LS1201A1). I am grateful to Petra Lasch-Born, Martin Gutsch, and Christoph Müller for commenting on an earlier version of this paper and to Tobias Pilz for helping designing the figures. I would like to acknowledge the invitation to write this review from the Section Editor Miko Kirschbaum and the Editor-in-Chief Michael Watt, and for their patience and support throughout the process.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Reyer reports grants from EU 7th Framework Program, grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, during the conduct of the study.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Kauppi PE, Mielikainen K, Kuusela K. Biomass and carbon budget of European forests, 1971 to 1990. Science. 1992;256:70–4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myneni RB, Keeling CD, Tucker CJ, Asrar G, Nemani R. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature. 1997;386:698–702.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Higuchi N, et al. Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: evidence from long-term plots. Science. 1998;282:439–42.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nemani RR, Keeling CD, Hashimoto H, Jolly WM, Piper SC, Tucker CJ, et al. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science. 2003;300:1560–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feeley KJ, Wright JS, Nur Supardi MN, Kassim AR, Davies SJ. Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees. Ecol Lett. 2007;10:461–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewis SL, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Sonke B, et al. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nature. 2009;457:1003–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McMahon SM, Parker GG, Miller DR. Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912376107.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spiecker H, Mielikäinen K, Köhl M, Skovsgaard JP, editors. Growth trends in European forests. Berlin: Springer; 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boisvenue C, Running SW. Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivity—evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Glob Chang Biol. 2006;12:862–82.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Vries W, Gert Jan R, Per G, Hubert S. The impact of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration in European forests and forest soils. Glob Chang Biol. 2006;12:1151–73.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Vries W, Solberg S, Dobbertin M, et al. The impact of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration by European forests and heathlands. For Ecol Manag. 2009;258:1814–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solberg S, Dobbertin M, Reinds G, Lange H, Andreassen K, Fernandez P, et al. Analyses of the impact of changes in atmospheric deposition and climate on forest growth in European monitoring plots: a stand growth approach. For Ecol Manag. 2009;258:1735–50.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Körner C. Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and resource supply. New Phytol. 2006;172:393–411.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leuzinger S, Körner C. Water savings in mature deciduous forest trees under elevated CO2. Glob Chang Biol. 2007;13:2498–508.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lebourgeois F, Bréda N, Ulrich E, Granier A. Climate-tree-growth relationships of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in the French Permanent Plot Network (RENECOFOR). Trees. 2005;19:385–401.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stegen JC, Swenson NG, Enquist BJ, et al. Variation in above-ground forest biomass across broad climatic gradients. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2011;20:744–54.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yi CX, Ricciuto D, Li R, et al. Climate control of terrestrial carbon exchange across biomes and continents. Environ Res Lett. 2010;5:10.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao M, Running SW. Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science. 2010;329:940–3.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Way DA, Oren R. Differential responses to changes in growth temperature between trees from different functional groups and biomes: a review and synthesis of data. Tree Physiol. 2010;30:669–88.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang X, Piao S, Ciais P, Li J, Friedlingstein P, Koven C, et al. Spring temperature change and its implication in the change of vegetation growth in North America from 1982 to 2006. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014425108.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeong S-J, Ho C-H, Gim H-J, Brown ME. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982–2008. Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17:2385–99.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirschbaum MUF. Forest growth and species distribution in a changing climate. Tree Physiol. 2000;20:309–22.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aber J, Neilson RP, McNulty S, Lenihan JM, Bachelet D, Drapek RJ. Forest processes and global environmental change: predicting the effects of individual and multiple stressors. Bioscience. 2001;51:735–51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hyvönen R, Ågren GI, Linder S, et al. The likely impact of elevated [CO2], nitrogen deposition, increased temperature and management on carbon sequestration in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems: a literature review. New Phytol. 2007;173:463–80.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chmura DJ, Anderson PD, Howe GT, Harrington CA, Halofsky JE, Peterson DL, et al. Forest responses to climate change in the northwestern United States: ecophysiological foundations for adaptive management. For Ecol Manag. 2011;261:1121–42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.•
    Lindner M, Fitzgerald JB, Zimmermann NE, Reyer C, Delzon S, van der Maaten E, et al. Climate change and European forests: what do we know, what are the uncertainties, and what are the implications for forest management? J Environ Manag. 2014;146:69–83. This paper gives an introduction on how to interpret climate change impact model simulations in forests and their uncertainties. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cipra B. Revealing uncertainties in computer models. Science. 2000;287:960–1.Google Scholar
  28. 28.••
    Medlyn BE, Duursma RA, Zeppel MJB. Forest productivity under climate change: a checklist for evaluating model studies. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2011;2:332–55. This paper provides a framework for assessing the suitability of a model for simulating forest productivity changes under climate change.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Agren GI, McMurtrie RE, Parton WJ, Pastor J, Shugart HH. State-of-the-art of models of production-decomposition linkages in conifer and grassland ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 1991;1:118–38.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shugart HH, Smith TM, Post WM. The potential for application of individual-based simulation models for assessing the effects of global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1992;23:15–38.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bugmann H. A review of forest gap models. Clim Chang. 2001;51:259–305.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schenk HJ. Modeling the effects of temperature on growth and persistence of tree species: a critical review of tree population models. Ecol Model. 1996;92:1–32.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Loehle C, Leblanc D. Model-based assessments of climate change effects on forests: a critical review. Ecol Model. 1996;90:1–31.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mäkelä A, Landsberg J, Ek AR, Burk TE, Ter-Mikaelian M, Agren GI, et al. Process-based models for forest ecosystem management: current state of the art and challenges for practical implementation. Tree Physiol. 2000;20:289–98.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Landsberg J. Modelling forest ecosystems: state of the art, challenges, and future directions. Can J For Res. 2003;33:385–97.Google Scholar
  36. 36.•
    Fontes L, Bontemps JD, Bugmann H, Van Oijen M, Gracia CA, Kramer K, et al. Models supporting forest management in a changing environment. Forest Syst. 2010;19(SI):8–29. This paper gives an overview of available models in Europe, their data needs and output provided.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mäkelä A, del Río M, Hynynen J, Hawkins M, Reyer C, Soares P, et al. Using stand-scale forest models for estimation of indicators of sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manag. 2012;285:164–78.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Betts RA, Shugart HH. Dynamic ecosystem and earth system models. In: Lovejoy TE, Hannah L, editors. Climate change and biodiversity. New Heaven: Yale University; 2005. p. 232–51.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ollinger SV, Aber JD, Reich PB, Freuder RJ. Interactive effects of nitrogen deposition, tropospheric ozone, elevated CO2 and land use history on the carbon dynamics of northern hardwood forests. Glob Chang Biol. 2002;8:545–62.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pan Y, Birdsey R, Hom J, Mccullough K. Separating effects of changes in atmospheric composition, climate and land-use on carbon sequestration of U.S. Mid-Atlantic temperate forests. For Ecol Manag. 2009;259:151–64.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eastaugh CS, Pötzelsberger E, Hasenauer H. Assessing the impacts of climate change and nitrogen deposition on Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) growth in Austria with BIOME-BGC. Tree Physiol. 2011;31:262–74.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reyer C, Lasch-Born P, Suckow F, Gutsch M, Murawski A, Pilz T. Projections of regional changes in forest net primary productivity for different tree species in Europe driven by climate change and carbon dioxide. Ann For Sci. 2014;71:211–25.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Su H, Sang W, Wang Y, Ma K. Simulating Picea schrenkiana forest productivity under climatic changes and atmospheric CO2 increase in Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, China. For Ecol Manag. 2007;246:273–84.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kellomäki S, Vaisanen H. Modelling the dynamics of the forest ecosystem for climate change studies in the boreal conditions. Ecol Model. 1997;97:121–40.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kramer K. Modeling comparison to evaluate the importance of phenology for the effects of climate change on growth of temperate-zone deciduous trees. Clim Res. 1995;5:119–30.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Berninger F, Hari P, Nikinmaa E, Lindholm M, Merilainen J. Use of modeled photosynthesis and decomposition to describe tree growth at the northern tree line. Tree Physiol. 2004;24:193–204.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Keeling HC, Phillips OL. The global relationship between forest productivity and biomass. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2007;16:618–31.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ciais P, Schelhaas MJ, Zaehle S, et al. Carbon accumulation in European forests. Nat Geosci. 2008;1:425–9.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pregitzer KS, Euskirchen ES. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Glob Chang Biol. 2004;10:2052–77.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;4:806–10.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grant RF, Black TA, Gaumont-Guay D, Kljun N, Barrc AG, Morgenstern K, et al. Net ecosystem productivity of boreal aspen forests under drought and climate change: mathematical modelling with Ecosys. Agric For Meteorol. 2006;140:152–70.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Houghton RA, Hackler JL, Lawrence KT. The U.S. carbon budget: contributions from land-use change. Science. 1999;285:574–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Caspersen JP, Pacala SW, Jenkins JC, Hurtt GC, Moorcroft PR, Birdsey RA. Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in U.S. forests. Science. 2000;290:1148–51.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Joos F, Prentice IC, House JI. Growth enhancement due to global atmospheric change as predicted by terrestrial ecosystem models: consistent with US forest inventory data. Glob Chang Biol. 2002;8:299–303.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schimel D, Melillo J, Tian H, et al. Contribution of increasing CO2 and climate to carbon storage by ecosystems in the United States. Science. 2000;287:2004–6.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Drake JE, Davis SC, Raetz LM, Delucia EH. Mechanisms of age-related changes in forest production: the influence of physiological and successional changes. Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17:1522–35.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    R Core Development Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Laurance WF, Oliveira AA, Laurance SG, et al. Pervasive alteration of tree communities in undisturbed Amazonian forests. Nature. 2004;428:171–5.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lewis SL, Phillips OL, Baker TR. Concerted changes in tropical forest structure and dynamics: evidence from 50 South American long-term plots. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2004;359:421–36.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Silva LCR, Madhur A. Probing for the influence of atmospheric CO2 and climate change on forest ecosystems across biomes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2012.00783.x.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Felzer B, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Wang C, Zhuang Q, Prinn R. Effects of ozone on net primary production and carbon sequestration in the conterminous United States using a biogeochemistry model. Tellus B. 2004;56:230–48.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kahle H-P, Karjalainen T, Schuck A, Agren GI, Kellomäki S, Mellert K, editors. Causes and consequences of forest growth trends in Europe. Leiden: Brill; 2008.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reay DS, Dentener F, Smith P, Grace J, Feely RA. Global nitrogen deposition and carbon sinks. Nat Geosci. 2008;1:430–7.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Reyer C, Brouwers N, Rammig A, Brook B, Epila J, Grant RF, et al. Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: approaches and challenges. J Ecol. 2015;103:5–15.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Norby RJ, Warren JM, Iversen CM, Medlyn BE, McMurtrie RE. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107:19368–73.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Peñuelas J, Hunt JM, Ogaya R, Jump AS. Twentieth century changes of tree-ring delta(13)C at the southern range-edge of Fagus sylvatica: increasing water-use efficiency does not avoid the growth decline induced by warming at low altitudes. Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14:1076–88.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Field CB, Jackson RB, Mooney HA. Stomatal responses to increased CO2: implications from the plant to the global scale. Plant Cell Environ. 1995;18:1214–25.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Reyer C, Leuzinger S, Rammig A, Wolf A, Bartholomeus RP, Bonfante A, et al. A plant’s perspective of extremes: terrestrial plant responses to changing climatic variability. Glob Chang Biol. 2013;19:75–89.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sun Y, Gu L, Dickinson RE, Norby RJ, Pallardy SG, Hoffman FM. Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111:15774–9.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jarvis P, Linder S. Botany: constraints to growth of boreal forests. Nature. 2000;405:904–5.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lucht W, Prentice IC, Myneni RB, et al. Climatic control of the high-latitude vegetation greening trend and Pinatubo effect. Science. 2002;296:1687–9.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ge Z-M, Zhou X, Kellomaki S, Wang K-Y, Peltola H, Vaisanen H, et al. Effects of changing climate on water and nitrogen availability with implications on the productivity of Norway spruce stands in Southern Finland. Ecol Model. 2010;221:1731–43.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dittmar C, Zech W, Elling W. Growth variations of common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under different climatic and environmental conditions in Europe—a dendroecological study. For Ecol Manag. 2003;173:63–78.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bontemps JD, Herve JC, Dhote JF. Long-term changes in forest productivity: a consistent assessment in even-aged stands. For Sci. 2009;55:549–64.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Charru M, Seynave I, Morneau F, Bontemps JD. Recent changes in forest productivity: an analysis of national forest inventory data for common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in north-eastern France. For Ecol Manag. 2010;260:864–74.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sarris D, Christodoulakis D, Körner C. Impact of recent climatic change on growth of low elevation eastern Mediterranean forest trees. Clim Chang. 2010;106:203–23.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Carnicer J, Coll M, Ninyerola M, Pons X, Sanchez G, Penuelas J. Widespread crown condition decline, food web disruption, and amplified tree mortality with increased climate change-type drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010070108.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Vayreda J, Martinez-Vilalta J, Gracia M, Retana J. Recent climate changes interact with stand structure and management to determine changes in tree carbon stocks in Spanish forests. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1028–41.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Keenan T, Maria Serra J, Lloret F, Ninyerola M, Sabate S. Predicting the future of forests in the Mediterranean under climate change, with niche- and process-based models: CO2 matters! Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17:565–79.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Peñuelas J, Canadell JG, Ogaya R. Increased water-use efficiency during the 20th century did not translate into enhanced tree growth. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2011;20:597–608.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kramer K, Leinonen I, Loustau D. The importance of phenology for the evaluation of impact of climate change on growth of boreal, temperate and Mediterranean forests ecosystems: an overview. Int J Biometeorol. 2000;44:67–75.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Simioni G, Ritson P, Kirschbaum MUF, McGrath J, Dumbrell I, Copeland B. The carbon budget of Pinus radiata plantations in south-western Australia under four climate change scenarios. Tree Physiol. 2009;29:1081–93.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kirschbaum MUF, Watt MS, Tait A, Ausseil A-GE. Future wood productivity of Pinus radiata in New Zealand under expected climatic changes. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:1342–56.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Cramer W, Alberte B, Woodward FI, et al. Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob Chang Biol. 2001;7:357–73.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Peters EB, Wythers KR, Zhang SX, Bradford JB, Reich PB. Potential climate change impacts on temperate forest ecosystem processes. Can J For Res. 2013;43:939–50.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kurz WA, Dymond CC, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Neilson ET, Carroll AL, et al. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature. 2008;452:987–90.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bugmann H, Bigler C. Will the CO2 fertilization effect in forests be offset by reduced tree longevity? Oecologia. 2011;165:533–44.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Di Filippo A, Biondi F, Maugeri M, Schirone B, Piovesan G. Bioclimate and growth history affect beech lifespan in the Italian Alps and Apennines. Glob Chang Biol. 2012;18:960–72.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tebaldi C, Knutti R. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2007;365:2053–75.Google Scholar
  90. 90.•
    van Oijen M, Reyer C, Bohn FJ, Cameron DR, Deckmyn G, Flechsig M, et al. Bayesian calibration, comparison and averaging of six forest models, using data from Scots pine stands across Europe. For Ecol Manag. 2013;289:255–68. This paper introduces a formal way of comparing different models and their structure based on forest inventory data and using Bayes theorem. Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Aber JD, Federer CA. A generalized, lumped-parameter model of photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and net primary production in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Oecologia. 1992;92:463–74.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Beerling DJ, Woodward FI, Lomas M, Jenkins AJ. Testing the responses of a dynamic global vegetation model to environmental change: a comparison of observations and predictions. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett. 1997;6:439–50.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bergh J, Freeman M, Sigurdsson B, Kellomaki S, Laitinen K, Niinisto S, et al. Modelling the short-term effects of climate change on the productivity of selected tree species in Nordic countries. For Ecol Manag. 2003;183:327–40.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Berninger F, Nikinmaa E. Implications of varying pipe model relationships on Scots Pine growth in different climates. Funct Ecol. 1997;11:146–56.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Berninger F. Effects of drought and phenology on GPP in Pinus sylvestris: a simulation study along a geographical gradient. Funct Ecol. 1997;11:33–42.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Boisvenue C, Running SW. Simulations show decreasing carbon stocks and potential for carbon emissions in Rocky Mountain forests over the next century. Ecol Appl. 2010;20:1302–19.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Booth TH, Nghia NH, Kirschbaum MUF, Hackett C, Jovanovic T. Assessing possible impacts of climate change on species important for forestry in Vietnam. Clim Chang. 1999;41:109–26.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Campbell JL, Rustad LE, Boyer EW, et al. Consequences of climate change for biogeochemical cycling in forests of northeastern North America. Can J For Res. 2009;39:264–84.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cannell MGR, Thornley JHM, Mobbs DC, Friend AD. UK conifer forests may be growing faster in response to increased N deposition, atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Forestry. 1998;71:277–96.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Deckmyn G, Muys B, Quijano JG, Ceulemans R. Carbon sequestration following afforestation of agricultural soils: comparing oak/beech forest to short-rotation poplar coppice combining a process and a carbon accounting model. Glob Chang Biol. 2004;10:1482–91.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Girardin MP, Raulier F, Bernier PY, Tardif JC. Response of tree growth to a changing climate in boreal central Canada: a comparison of empirical, process-based, and hybrid modelling approaches. Ecol Model. 2008;213:209–28.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Grant RF, Nalder IA. Climate change effects on net carbon exchange of a boreal aspen-hazelnut forest: estimates from the ecosystem model Ecosys. Glob Chang Biol. 2000;6:183–200.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Grant RF, Goulden ML, Wofsy SC, Berry JA. Carbon and energy exchange by a black spruce-moss ecosystem under changing climate: testing the mathematical model Ecosys with data from the BOREAS experiment. J Geophys Res-Atmos. 2001;106:33605–21.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Grant RF, Margolis HA, Barr AG, Black TA, Dunn AL, Bernier PY, et al. Changes in net ecosystem productivity of boreal black spruce stands in response to changes in temperature at diurnal and seasonal time scales. Tree Physiol. 2009;29:1–17.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Hanson PJ, Wullschleger SD, Norby RJ, Tschaplinski TJ, Gunderson CA. Importance of changing CO2, temperature, precipitation, and ozone on carbon and water cycles of an upland-oak forest: incorporating experimental results into model simulations. Glob Chang Biol. 2005;11:1402–23.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hlásny T, Barcza Z, Fabrika M, Balazs B, Churkina G, Pajtik J, et al. Climate change impacts on growth and carbon balance of forests in Central Europe. Clim Res. 2011;47:219–36.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ito A. Changing ecophysiological processes and carbon budget in East Asian ecosystems under near-future changes in climate: implications for long-term monitoring from a process-based model. J Plant Res. 2010;123:577–88.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Jansson P-E, Svensson M, Kleja DB, Gustafsson D. Simulated climate change impacts on fluxes of carbon in Norway spruce ecosystems along a climatic transect in Sweden. Biogeochemistry. 2008;89:81–94.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kajfez-Bogataj L, Hocevar A. Assessment of climate-change effects on productivity of beech stands in Slovenia using simulation methods. Agric For Meteorol. 1994;72:47–56.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kellomäki S, Karjalainen T, Vaisanen H. More timber from boreal forests under changing climate? For Ecol Manag. 1997;94:195–208.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kirschbaum MUF. Modelling forest growth and carbon storage in response to increasing CO2 and temperature. Tellus Ser B Chem Phys Meteorol. 1999;51:871–88.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kramer K, Mohren GMJ. Sensitivity of FORGRO to climatic change scenarios: a case study on Betula pubescens, Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur in the Netherlands. Clim Chang. 1996;34:231–7.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Kramer K, Friend A, Leinonen I. Modelling comparison to evaluate the importance of phenology and spring frost damage for the effects of climate change on growth of mixed temperate-zone deciduous forests. Clim Res. 1996;7:31–41.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kruijt B, Barton C, Rey A, Jarvis PG. The sensitivity of stand-scale photosynthesis and transpiration to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 1999;3:55–69.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Lasch P, Badeck FW, Lindner M, Suckow F. Sensitivity of simulated forest growth to changes in climate and atmospheric CO2. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt. 2002;121:155–71.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Leblanc DC, Foster JR. Predicting the effects of global warming on growth and mortality of upland oak species in the midwestern United States—a physiologically based dendroecological approach. Can J For Res. 1992;22:1739–52.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Leinonen I, Kramer K. Applications of phenological models to predict the future carbon sequestration potential of boreal forests. Clim Chang. 2002;55:99–113.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Luan JS, Luo YQ, Reynolds JF. Responses of a loblolly pine ecosystem to CO2 enrichment: a modeling analysis. Tree Physiol. 1999;19:279–87.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Luo YQ, Reynolds JF. Validity of extrapolating field CO2 experiments to predict carbon sequestration in natural ecosystems. Ecology. 1999;80:1568–83.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Luo Z, Sun OJ, Wang E, Ren H, Xu H. Modeling productivity in mangrove forests as impacted by effective soil water availability and its sensitivity to climate change using biome-BGC. Ecosystems. 2010;13:949–65.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Macinnis-Ng C, Zeppel M, Williams M, Eamus D. Applying a SPA model to examine the impact of climate change on GPP of open woodlands and the potential for woody thickening. Ecohydrology. 2010;4:379–93.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Magnani F, Consiglio L, Erhard M, Nole A, Ripullone F, Borghetti M. Growth patterns and carbon balance of Pinus radiata and Pseudotsuga menziesii plantations under climate change scenarios in Italy. For Ecol Manag. 2004;202:93–105.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    McMurtrie RE, Comins HN. The temporal response of forest ecosystems to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration. Glob Chang Biol. 1996;2:49–57.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    McMurtrie RE, Wang YP. Mathematical models of the photosynthetic response of tree stands to rising CO2 concentrations and temperatures. Plant Cell Environ. 1993;16:1–13.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    McMurtrie RE, Medlyn BE, Dewar RC. Increased understanding of nutrient immobilization in soil organic matter is critical for predicting the carbon sink strength of forest ecosystems over the next 100 years. Tree Physiol. 2001;21:831–9.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    McNulty SG, Vose JM, Swank WT. Potential climate change effects on loblolly pine forest productivity and drainage across the southern United States. Ambio. 1996;25:449–53.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Medlyn BE, McMurtrie RE, Dewar RC, Jeffreys MP. Soil processes dominate the long-term response of forest net primary productivity to increased temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Can J For Res. 2000;30:873–88.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Peng CH, Apps MJ. Simulating carbon dynamics along the Boreal Forest Transect Case Study (BFTCS) in central Canada—2. Sensitivity to climate change. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 1998;12:393–402.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Peng CH, Apps MJ. Modelling the response of net primary productivity (NPP) of boreal forest ecosystems to changes in climate and fire disturbance regimes. Ecol Model. 1999;122:175–93.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Pepper DA, Del Grosso SJ, McMurtrie RE, Parton WJ. Simulated carbon sink response of shortgrass steppe, tallgrass prairie and forest ecosystems to rising [CO2], temperature and nitrogen input. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2005. doi: 10.1029/2004GB002226.
  131. 131.
    Potter CS, Wang SS, Nikolov NT, et al. Comparison of boreal ecosystem model sensitivity to variability in climate and forest site parameters. J Geophys Res-Atmos. 2001;106:33671–87.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Rathgeber C, Nicault A, Kaplan JO, Guiot J. Using a biogeochemistry model in simulating forests productivity responses to climatic change and [CO2] increase: example of Pinus halepensis in Provence (south-east France). Ecol Model. 2003;166:239–55.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Reyer C, Lasch P, Mohren GMJ, Sterck FJ. Inter-specific competition in mixed forests of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and common beech (Fagus sylvatica) under climate change—a model-based analysis. Ann For Sci. 2010;67:805.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Sabate S, Gracia CA, Sanchez A. Likely effects of climate change on growth of Quercus ilex, Pinus halepensis, Pinus pinaster, Pinus sylvestris and Fagus sylvatica forests in the Mediterranean region. For Ecol Manag. 2002;162:23–37.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Smithwick EAH, Ryan MG, Kashian DM, Romme WH, Tinker DB, Turner MG. Modeling the effects of fire and climate change on carbon and nitrogen storage in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stands. Glob Chang Biol. 2009;15:535–48.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Su HX, Sang WG. Simulations and analysis of net primary productivity in Quercus liaotungensis forest of Donglingshan Mountain Range in response to different climate change scenarios. Acta Bot Sin. 2004;46:1281–91.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Sun G, Amatya DM, McNulty SG, Skaggs RW, Hughes JH. Climate change impacts on the hydrology and productivity of a pine plantation. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2000;36:367–74.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Thornley JHM, Cannell MGR. Temperate forest responses to carbon dioxide, temperature and nitrogen: a model analysis. Plant Cell Environ. 1996;19:1331–48.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Ueyama M, Harazono Y, Kim Y, Tanaka N. Response of the carbon cycle in sub-arctic black spruce forests to climate change: reduction of a carbon sink related to the sensitivity of heterotrophic respiration. Agric For Meteorol. 2009;149:582–602.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Vitale M, Scimone M, Feoli E, Manes F. Modelling leaf gas exchanges to predict functional trends in Mediterranean Quercus ilex forest under climatic changes in temperature. Ecol Model. 2003;166:123–34.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Zheng D, Freeman M, Bergh J, Rosberg I, Nilsen P. Production of Picea abies in south-east Norway in response to climate change: a case study using process-based model simulation with field validation. Scand J For Res. 2002;17:35–46.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Briceno-Elizondo E, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Peltola H, Kellomaki S. Carbon stocks and timber yield in two boreal forest ecosystems under current and changing climatic conditions subjected to varying management regimes. Environ Sci Pol. 2006;9:237–52.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Garcia-Gonzalo J, Peltola H, Briceno-Elizondo E, Kellomaki S. Changed thinning regimes may increase carbon stock under climate change: a case study from a Finnish boreal forest. Clim Chang. 2007;81:431–54.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Ge Z-M, Kellomaki S, Peltola H, Zhou X, Wang K-Y, Vaisanen H. Impacts of changing climate on the productivity of Norway spruce dominant stands with a mixture of Scots pine and birch in relation to water availability in southern and northern Finland. Tree Physiol. 2011;31:323–38.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Grant RF, Jarvis PG, Massheder JM, Hale SE, Moncrieff JB, Rayment M, et al. Controls on carbon and energy exchange by a black spruce—moss ecosystem: testing the mathematical model Ecosys with data from the BOREAS experiment. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2001;15:129–47.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Grant RF, Barr AG, Black TA, et al. Net ecosystem productivity of boreal jack pine stands regenerating from clear-cutting under current and future climates. Glob Chang Biol. 2007;13:1423–40.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Kirschbaum MUF. A modeling analysis of the interaction between forest age and forest responsiveness to increasing CO2 concentration. Tree Physiol. 2005;25:953–63.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Luckai N, Larocque GR. Challenges in the application of existing process-based models to predict the effect of climate change on C pools in forest ecosystems. Clim Chang. 2002;55:39–60.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Matala J, Ojansuu R, Peltola H, Sievanen R, Kellomaki S. Introducing effects of temperature and CO2 elevation on tree growth into a statistical growth and yield model. Ecol Model. 2005;181:173–90.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Matala J, Ojansuu R, Peltola H, Raitio H, Kellomaki S. Modelling the response of tree growth to temperature and CO2 elevation as related to the fertility and current temperature sum of a site. Ecol Model. 2006;199:39–52.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Nilson A, Kiviste A, Korjus H, Mihkelson S, Etverk I, Oja T. Impact of recent and future climate change on Estonian forestry and adaptation tools. Clim Res. 1999;12:205–14.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Oja T, Arp PA. Nutrient cycling and biomass growth at a North American hardwood site in relation to climate change: ForSVA assessments. Clim Chang. 1996;34:239–51.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Pinkard EA, Battaglia M, Bruce J, Leriche A, Kriticos DJ. Process-based modelling of the severity and impact of foliar pest attack on eucalypt plantation productivity under current and future climates. For Ecol Manag. 2010;259:839–47.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Price DT, Peng CH, Apps MJ, Halliwell DH. Simulating effects of climate change on boreal ecosystem carbon pools in central Canada. J Biogeogr. 1999;26:1237–48.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Roetzer T, Seifert T, Pretzsch H. Modelling above and below ground carbon dynamics in a mixed beech and spruce stand influenced by climate. Eur J For Res. 2009;128:171–82.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Shaw C, Chertov O, Komarov A, Bhatti J, Nadporozskaya M, Apps M, et al. Application of the forest ecosystem model EFIMOD 2 to jack pine along the Boreal Forest Transect Case Study. Can J Soil Sci. 2006;86:171–85.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Väisänen H, Strandman H, Kellomaki S. A model for simulating the effects of changing climate on the functioning and structure of the boreal forest ecosystem—an approach based on object-oriented design. Tree Physiol. 1994;14:1081–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchResearch Domain II: Climate Impacts and VulnerabilitiesPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations