, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 683–700 | Cite as

Back to the Future: The Responses of Alpine Treelines to Climate Warming are Constrained by the Current Ecotone Structure

  • J. Julio CamareroEmail author
  • Juan Carlos Linares
  • Ana I. García-Cervigón
  • Enric Batllori
  • Isabel Martínez
  • Emilia Gutiérrez


Alpine treeline ecotones are considered early-warning monitors of the effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems, but it is still unclear how accurately treeline dynamics may track the expected temperature rises. Site-specific abiotic constraints, such as topography and demographic trends may make treelines less responsive to environmental fluctuations. A better understanding on how local processes modulate treelines’ response to warming is thus required. We developed a model of treeline dynamics based on individual data of growth, mortality and reproduction. Specifically, we modeled growth patterns, mortality rates and reproductive size thresholds as a function of temperature and stand structure to evaluate the influence of climate- and stand-related processes on treeline dynamics. In this study, we analyze the dynamics of four Pyrenean mountain pine treeline sites with contrasting stand structures, and subjected to differing rates of climate warming. Our models indicate that Pyrenean treelines could reach basal areas and reproductive potentials similar to those currently observed in high-elevation subalpine forest by the mid twenty-first century. The fastest paces of treeline densification are forecasted by the late twenty-first century and are associated with higher warming rates. We found a common densification response of Pyrenean treelines to climate warming, but contrasting paces arise due to current size structures. Treelines characterized by a multistratified stand structure and subjected to lower mean annual temperatures were the most responsive to climate warming. In monostratified stands, tree growth was less sensitive to temperature than in multistratified stands and trees reached their reproductive size threshold later. Therefore, our simulations highlight that stand structure is paramount in modulating treeline responsiveness to ongoing climate warming. Synthesis. Treeline densification over the twenty-first century is likely to occur at different rates contingent on current stand structure and its effects on individual-level tree growth responses to warming. Accurate projections of future treeline dynamics must thus incorporate site-specific factors other than climate, specifically those related to stand structure and its influence on tree growth.


climate warming mountain pine plant–climate interactions Pyrenees Pinus uncinata reproductive size threshold stand structure tree growth treeline shift 



The authors thank several people for their help in site selection and field sampling. The authors thank the Spanish Ministry of Research who funded this research through projects AMB95–0160 and REN2002–04268-C02. J.C. Linares’ contribution was partly supported by the European Union FEDER 0087 TRANSHABITAT and the “Retos” Project CGL2013-48843-C2-2R (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness). Enric Batllori acknowledges the support of a Marie Curie IIF grant (Marie Curie IIF, PIFF-GA-2103-625547). The autors sincerely thank the useful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers and the subject editor.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10021_2016_46_MOESM1_ESM.doc (7.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 7727 kb)


  1. Agustí-Panareda A, Thompson R, Livingstone DM. 2000. Reconstructing temperature variations at high elevation lake sites in Europe during the instrumental period. Verhandlungen Internationalen Vereinigung Limnologie 27:479–83.Google Scholar
  2. Alftine K, Malanson GP. 2004. Directional positive feedbacks and pattern at an alpine tree line. Journal of Vegetation Science 15:3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ameztegui A, Brotons L, Coll L. 2010. Land-use changes as major drivers of Mountain pine (Pinus uncinata Ram.) expansion in the Pyrenees. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19:632–41.Google Scholar
  4. Ameztegui A, Coll L, Brotons L, Ninot JM. 2015. Land-use legacies rather than climate change are driving the recent upward shift of the mountain tree line in the Pyrenees. Global Ecology and Biogeography. doi: 10.1111/geb.12407.Google Scholar
  5. Barbeito I, Dawes MA, Rixen C, Senn J, Bebi P. 2012. Factors driving mortality and growth at treeline: a 30-year experiment of 92000 conifers. Ecology 93:389–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Batllori E, Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E. 2010. Current regeneration patterns at the tree line in the Pyrenees indicate similar recruitment processes irrespective of the past disturbance regime. Journal of Biogeography 37:1938–50.Google Scholar
  7. Batllori E, Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E. 2012. Climatic drivers of tree growth and recent recruitment at the Pyrenean alpine tree line ecotone. In: Myster RW, Ed. Ecotones Between Forest and Grassland. New York: Springer. p 247–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batllori E, Camarero JJ, Ninot JM, Gutiérrez E. 2009. Seedling recruitment, survival and facilitation in alpine Pinus uncinata tree line ecotones. Implications and potential responses to climate warming. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:460–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Batllori E, Gutiérrez E. 2008. Regional tree line dynamics in response to global change in the Pyrenees. Journal of Ecology 96:1275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bekker MF. 2005. Positive feedback between tree establishment and patterns of subalpine forest advancement, Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 37:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosch O, Gutiérrez E. 1999. La sucesión en los bosques de Pinus uncinata del Pirineo. De los anillos de crecimiento a la historia del bosque. Ecología 13:133–71.Google Scholar
  12. Bücher A, Dessens J. 1991. Secular trend of surface temperature at an elevated observatory in the Pyrenees. Journal of Climate 4:859–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Camarero JJ (1999) Growth and regeneration patterns and processes in Pinus uncinata Ram. treeline ecotones in the Pyrenees and an isolated population in the western distribution limit in Spain. PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  15. Camarero JJ, Gazol A, Galván JD, Sangüesa-Barreda G, Gutiérrez E. 2015. Disparate effects of global-change drivers on mountain conifer forests: warming-induced growth enhancement in young trees vs. CO2 fertilization in old trees from wet sites. Global Change Biology 21:738–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Camarero JJ, Guerrero-Campo J, Gutiérrez E. 1998. Tree-ring growth and structure of Pinus uncinata and Pinus sylvestris in the central Spanish Pyrenees. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 30:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E. 2004. Pace and pattern of recent treeline dynamics: response of ecotones to climatic variability in the Spanish Pyrenees. Climatic Change 63:181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E, Fortin M-J. 2000. Spatial pattern of subalpine forest-alpine grassland ecotones in the Spanish Central Pyrenees. Forest Ecology and Management 134:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E, Fortin M-J, Ribbens E. 2005. Spatial patterns of tree recruitment in a relict population of Pinus uncinata: densification through stratified-diffusion. Journal of Biogeography 32:1979–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cantegrel R. 1983. Le pin à crochets pyrénéen: biologie, biochimie, sylviculture. Acta Biologica Montana 2–3:87–331.Google Scholar
  21. Carlson BZ, Renaud J, Biron PE, Choler P. 2014. Long-term modeling of the forest–grassland ecotone in the French Alps: implications for land management and conservation. Ecological Applications 24:1213–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Chauchard S, Carcaillet C, Guibal F. 2007. Patterns of land-use abandonment control tree-recruitment and forest dynamics in Mediterranean Mountains. Ecosystems 10:936–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuevas JG. 2002. Episodic regeneration at the Nothofagus pumilio alpine timberline in Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Journal of Ecology 90:52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cullen LE, Stewart GH, Duncan RP, Palmer JG. 2001. Disturbance and climate warming influences on New Zealand Nothofagus tree-line population dynamics. Journal of Ecology 89:1061–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dufour-Tremblay G, Lévesque E, Boudreau S. 2012. Dynamics at the treeline: differential responses of Picea mariana and Larix laricina to climate change in eastern subarctic Québec. Environmental Research Letters 7:044038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dullinger S, Dirnböck T, Grabherr G. 2004. Modelling climate change-driven treeline shifts: relative effects of temperature increase, dispersal and invasibility. Journal of Ecology 92:241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fajardo A, McIntire EJB. 2012. Reversal of multicentury tree growth improvements and loss of synchrony at mountain tree lines point to changes in key drivers. Journal of Ecology 100:782–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galván D, Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E. 2014. Seeing the trees for the forest: drivers of individual growth responses to climate in Pinus uncinata mountain forests. Journal of Ecology 102:1244–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. García-Ruiz JM, Lasanta T, Ruiz-Flaño P, Ortigosa L, White S, González C, Martí C. 1996. Land-use changes and sustainable development in mountain areas: a case study in the Spanish Pyrenees. Landscape Ecology 11:267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gehrig-Fasel J, Guisan A, Zimmermann NE. 2007. Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: climate change or land abandonment? Journal of Vegetation Science 18:571–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gelman A, Hill J. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. González-Muñoz N, Linares JC, Castro-Díez P, Sass-Klaassen U. 2014. Predicting climate change impacts on native and invasive tree species using radial growth and twenty-first century climate scenarios. European Journal of Forest Research 133:1073–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. González de Andrés E, Camarero JJ, Büntgen U. 2015. Complex climate constraints of upper treeline formation in the Pyrenees. Trees-Structure and Function 29:941–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gray ST, Betancourt JL, Jackson ST, Eddy RG. 2006. Role of multidecadal climate variability in a range extension of Pinyon pine. Ecology 87:1124–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hagedorn F, Shiyatov SG, Mazepa VS, Devi NM, Grigor’ev AA, Bartysh AA, Fomin VV, Kapralov DS, Terent’ev M, Bugman H, Rigling A, Moiseev PA. 2014. Treeline advances along the Urals mountain range—driven by improved winter conditions? Global Change Biology 20:3530–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Harsch MA, Hulme PE, McGlone MS, Duncan RP. 2009. Are treelines advancing? A global meta-analysis of treeline response to climate warming. Ecology Letters 12:1040–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Harsch MA, Buxton R, Duncan RP, Hulme PE, Wardle P, Wilmshurst J. 2012. Causes of tree line stability: stem growth, recruitment and mortality rates over 15 years at New Zealand Nothofagus tree lines. Journal of Biogeography 39:2061–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harris I, Jones PD, Osborn TJ, Lister DH. 2014. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations. International Journal of Climatology 34:623–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hättenschwiler S, Smith WK. 1999. Seedling occurrence in alpine treeline conifers: a case study from the central Rocky Mountains, USA. Acta Oecologica 20:219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holtmeier F-K. 2009. Mountain Timberlines-Ecology, Patchiness, and Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holtmeier F-K, Broll G. 2005. Sensitivity and response of northern hemisphere altitudinal and polar treelines to environmental change at landscape and local scales. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14:395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (editors), Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson EA, Miyanishi K, Kleb H. 1994. The hazards of interpretation of static age structures as shown by stand reconstructions in a Pinus contorta-Picea engelmannii forest. Journal of Ecology 82:923–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kjellsström E, Nikulin G, Hansson U, Strandberg G, Ullerstig A. 2011. 21st century changes in the European climate: uncertainties derived from an ensemble of regional climate model simulations. Tellus 63A:24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Körner Ch. 2012. Alpine Treelines. Basel: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kullman L. 1984. Germinability of mountain birch (Betula pubescens ssp. tortuosa) along two altitudinal transects downslope from the tree-limit. Reports from the Kevo Subarctic Research Station 19:11–18.Google Scholar
  47. Kullman L. 2007. Tree line population monitoring of Pinus sylvestris in the Swedish Scandes, 1973–2005: implications for tree line theory and climate change ecology. Journal of Ecology 95:41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kupfer JA, Cairns DM. 1996. The suitability of montane ecotones as indicators of global climatic change. Progress in Physical Geography 20:253–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lescourret F, Génard M. 1983. Les graines de Pins à crochets: approche quantitative du rôle consommateur des petits vertébrés. Acta Biologica Montana 2–3:43–76.Google Scholar
  50. Liang E, Wang Y, Eckstein D, Luo T. 2011. Little change in the fir tree-line position on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau after 200 years of warming. New Phytologist 190:760–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Lloyd AH. 2005. Ecological histories from Alaskan tree Lines provide insight into future change. Ecology 86:1687–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lloyd AH, Graumlich LJ. 1997. Holocene dynamics of treeline forests in the Sierra Nevada. Ecology 78:1199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Macias-Fauria M, Johnson EA. 2013. Warming-induced upslope advance of subalpine forest is severely limited by geomorphic processes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:8117–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martín-Alcón S, Coll L, Aunós A. 2012. A broad-scale analysis of the main factors determining the current structure and understory composition of Catalonian sub-alpine (Pinus uncinata Ram.) forests. Forestry 85:225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martínez I, Wiegand T, Camarero JJ, Batllori E, Gutiérrez E. 2011. Disentangling the formation of contrasting tree line physiognomies combining model selection and Bayesian parameterization for simulation models. The American Naturalist 177:E136–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Martínez I, González-Taboada F, Wiegand T, Camarero JJ, Gutiérrez E. 2012. Dispersal limitation and spatial scale affect model based projections of Pinus uncinata response to climate change in the Pyrenees. Global Change Biology 18:1714–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mazepa VS. 2005. Stand density in the last millennium at the upper tree-line ecotone in the Polar Ural Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:2082–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nakicenovic N, Swart R. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ninot JM, Carrillo E, Font X, Carreras J, Ferré A, Masalles RM, Soriano I, Vigo J. 2007. Altitude zonation in the Pyrenees. A geobotanic interpretation. Phytocoenologia 37:371–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Noble IR. 1993. A model of the responses of ecotones to climate change. Ecological Applications 3:396–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Paulsen J, Weber UM, Körner C. 2000. Tree growth near treeline: abrupt or gradual reduction with altitude? Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 32:14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. R Development Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 3.1.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.Google Scholar
  63. Roeckner E, Bäuml G, Bonaventura L, Brokopf R, Esch M, Giorgetta M, Hagemann S, Kirchner I, Kornblueh L, Manzini E, Rhodin A, Schlese U, Shulzweida U, Tompkins A. 2003. The Atmospheric General Circulation Model ECHAM 5. Part I: Model Description. Hamburg: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Google Scholar
  64. Rossi S, Deslauriers A, Gričar J, Seo JW, Rathgeber CBK, Anfodillo T, Morin H, Levanic T, Oven P, Jalkanen R. 2008. Critical temperatures for xylogenesis in conifers of cold climates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17:696–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith WK, Germino MJ, Hancock TE, Johnson DM. 2003. Another perspective on altitudinal limits of alpine timberlines. Tree Physiology 23:1101–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Stoll P, Bergius E. 2005. Pattern and process: competition causes regular spacing of individuals within plant populations. Journal of Ecology 93:395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tardif J, Camarero JJ, Ribas M, Gutiérrez E. 2003. Spatiotemporal variability in tree growth in the central Pyrenees: climatic and site influences. Ecological Monographs 73:241–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tranquillini W. 1979. Physiological Ecology of the Alpine Timberline: Tree Existance at High Altitudes with Special Reference to the European Alps. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Villaescusa R, Diaz R. 1998. Segundo Inventario Forestal Nacional (1986–1996). ICONA, Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  70. Villanueva JA. 2004. Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional (1997–2007). Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  71. Vittoz P, Rulence B, Largey T, Frelechoux F. 2008. Effects of climate and land-use change on the establishment and growth of Cembran pine (Pinus cembra L.) over the altitudinal treeline ecotone in the Central Swiss Alps. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 40:225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang Y, Camarero JJ, Luo T, Liang E. 2012. Spatial patterns of Smith fir alpine treelines on the south-eastern Tibetan Plateau support that contingent local conditions drive recent treeline patterns. Plant Ecology and Diversity 5:311–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wardle P. 1993. Causes of alpine timberline: a review of the hypotheses. In: Alden JN, Odum S, Mastrantonio JL, Eds. Forest Development in Cold Climates. New York: Springer. p 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wiegand T, Camarero JJ, Rüger N, Gutiérrez E. 2006. Abrupt population changes in treeline ecotones along smooth gradients. Journal of Ecology 94:880–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright SJ, Jaramillo MA, Pavon J, Condit R, Hubbell SP, Foster RB. 2005. Reproductive size thresholds in tropical trees: variation among individuals, species and forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21:307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Julio Camarero
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan Carlos Linares
    • 2
  • Ana I. García-Cervigón
    • 3
  • Enric Batllori
    • 4
    • 5
  • Isabel Martínez
    • 6
  • Emilia Gutiérrez
    • 7
  1. 1.Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología (IPE-CSIC)SaragossaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Sistemas Físicos, Químicos y NaturalesUniversidad Pablo de OlavideSevillaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Ciencias Agroforestales, EU de Ingenierías AgrariasUniversidad de ValladolidSoriaSpain
  4. 4.CEMFOR–CTFC, Forest Joint Research Unit, CSIC-CTFC-CREAFSolsonaSpain
  5. 5.CREAFCerdanyola del VallèsSpain
  6. 6.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural ResourcesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  7. 7.Department d’ EcologíaUniversidad de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations