Climatic Change

, Volume 118, Issue 3–4, pp 579–593 | Cite as

Key factors affecting the future provision of tree-based forest ecosystem goods and services

  • Livia RascheEmail author
  • Lorenz Fahse
  • Harald Bugmann


The continuous provisioning of forest ecosystem goods and services (EGS) is of considerable interest to society. To provide insights on how much EGS provision will change with a changing climate and which factors will influence this change the most, we simulated forest stands on six climatically different sites in Central Europe under several scenarios of species diversity, management, and climate change. We evaluated the influence of these factors on the provision of a range of tree-based EGS, represented by harvested basal area, total biomass, stand diversity, and productivity. The most influential factor was species diversity, with diverse forest stands showing a lower sensitivity to climate change than monocultures. Management mainly influenced biomass, with the most intensively managed stands retaining more of their original biomass than others. All three climate-change scenarios yielded very similar results. We showed that (1) only few factor combinations perform worse under climate-change conditions than others, (2) diversity aspects are important for adaptive management measures, but for some indicators, management may be more important than diversity, and (3) at locations subject to increasing drought, the future provision of EGS may decrease regardless of the factor combination. This quantitative evaluation of the influence of different factors on changes in the provision of forest EGS with climate change represents an important step towards the design of more focused adaptation strategies and highlights key factors that should be considered in simulation studies under climate change.


Electronic Supplementary Material Basal Area Adaptive Management Drought Index Potential Natural Vegetation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Niklaus Zimmermann and Dirk Schmatz (WSL) for providing the climate change scenario data, Christof Bigler for suggestions on statistical analyses, and Xavier Morin and three anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research under COST Action FP0603.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_664_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (516 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 515 kb)


  1. Badeck FW, Fürstenau C, Lasch P, Suckow F, Peltola H, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Briceno-Elizondo E, Kellomäki S, Lexer MJ, Jäger D, Lindner M, Thiel D, Kaipanen T, Lehikoinen N, Junge S, Feliu J (2005) Adaptive management at the scale of management unit. In: Kellomäki S, Leinonen S (eds) Management of European forests under changing climatic conditions. University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland, pp 316–382Google Scholar
  2. Bodin P, Wiman BLB (2007) The usefulness of stability concepts in forest management when coping with increasing climate uncertainties. Forest Ecol Manag 242:541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonan GB (2008) Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320:1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bugmann H (1996) A simplified forest model to study species composition along climate gradients. Ecology 77:2055–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugmann H, Solomon AM (2000) Explaining forest composition and biomass across multiple biogeographical regions. Ecol Appl 10:95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardinale BJ, Wright JP, Cadotte MW, Carroll IT, Hector A, Srivastava DS, Loreau M, Weis JJ (2007) Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:18123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Lovett A (2011) Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. Forest Pol Econ 13:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciais P, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Ogee J, Allard V, Aubinet M, Buchmann N, Bernhofer C, Carrara A, Chevallier F, De Noblet N, Friend AD, Friedlingstein P, Grunwald T, Heinesch B, Keronen P, Knohl A, Krinner G, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Miglietta F, Ourcival JM, Papale D, Pilegaard K, Rambal S, Seufert G, Soussana JF, Sanz MJ, Schulze ED, Vesala T, Valentini R (2005) Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cordonnier T, Courbaud B, Berger F, Franc A (2008) Permanence of resilience and protection efficiency in mountain Norway spruce forest stands: a simulation study. For Ecol Manag 256:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dale VH, Tharp ML, Lannom KO, Hodges DG (2010) Modeling transient response of forests to climate change. Sci Total Environ 408:1888–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Díaz S, Tilman D, Fargione J (2005) Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. In: Hassan RM, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, vol 1. Island, Washington, DC, pp 297–329Google Scholar
  12. Didion M, Kupferschmid A, Zingg A, Fahse L, Bugmann H (2009) Gaining local accuracy while not losing generality: extending the range of gap model applications. Can J For Res 39:1092–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M (2006) Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J For Res 36:2285–2299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eggers J, Lindner M, Zudin S, Zaehle S, Liski J (2008) Impact of changing wood demand, climate and land use on European forest resources and carbon stocks during the 21st century. Glob Chang Biol 14:2288–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1:488–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FOREST EUROPE, UNECE, FAO (2011) State of Europe’s forests 2011. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Oslo, Norway, 14–16 June 2011Google Scholar
  17. Hansen AJ, Neilson RP, Dale VH, Flather CH, Iverson LR, Currie DJ, Shafer S, Cook R, Bartlein PJ (2001) Global change in forests: responses of species, communities, and biomes. Bioscience 51:765–779Google Scholar
  18. Hassan RM, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) (2005) Current State and Trends. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-being, vol 1. Island Press, Washington, DC, 917 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Hooper D, Chapin Iii F, Ewel J, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton J, Lodge D, Loreau M, Naeem S (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huo C, Cheng G, Lu X, Fan J (2010) Simulating the effects of climate change on forest dynamics on Gongga Mountain, Southwest China. J For Res 15:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report. Contributions of working groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. in Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds.), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 104Google Scholar
  22. Jacob M, Leuschner C, Thomas FM (2010) Productivity of temperate broad-leaved forest stands differing in tree species diversity. Ann For Sci 67:503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kardol P, Todd DE, Hanson PJ, Mulholland PJ (2010) Long-term successional forest dynamics: species and community responses to climatic variability. J Veg Sci 21:627–642Google Scholar
  24. Kellomäki S, Peltola H, Nuutinen T, Korhonen KT, Strandman H (2008) Sensitivity of managed boreal forests in Finland to climate change, with implications for adaptive management. Phil Trans Roy Soc B Biol Sci 363:2339–2349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschbaum M, Bullock P, Evans J, Goulding K, Jarvis P, Noble I, Rounsevell M, Sharkey T (1996) Ecophysiological, ecological and soil processes in terrestrial ecosystems: a primer on general concepts and relationships. In: Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds) Climate Change 1995. Impacts, adaptation and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–74Google Scholar
  26. Köhl M, Hildebrandt R, Olschofksy K, Köhler R, Rötzer T, Mette T, Pretzsch H, Köthke M, Dieter M, Abiy M, Makeschin F, Kenter B (2010) Combating the effects of climatic change on forests by mitigation strategies. Carbon Balance Manag 5:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasch P, Badeck FW, Suckow F, Lindner M, Mohr P (2005) Model-based analysis of management alternatives at stand and regional level in Brandenburg (Germany). For Ecol Manag 207:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lexer MJ, Seidl R (2009) Addressing biodiversity in a stakeholder-driven climate change vulnerability assessment of forest management. For Ecol Manag 258:S158–S167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindner M (2000) Developing adaptive forest management strategies to cope with climate change. Tree Physiol 20:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loustau D, Bosc A, Colin A, Ogée J, Davi H, François C, Dufrêne E, Déqué M, Cloppet E, Arrouays D (2005) Modeling climate change effects on the potential production of French plains forests at the sub-regional level. Tree Physiol 25:813–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moore AD (1989) On the maximum growth equation used in forest gap simulation models. Ecol Model 45:63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bugmann H (2011) Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecol Lett 14(12):1211–1219Google Scholar
  34. Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, Karjalainen T, Erhard M, Kramer K (2002) Stemwood volume increment changes in European forests due to climate change: a simulation study with the EFISCEN model. Glob Chang Biol 8:304–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noss RF (2001) Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conserv Biol 15:578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nuutinen T, Matala J, Hirvelä H, Härkönen K, Peltola H, Väisänen H, Kellomäki S (2006) Regionally optimized forest management under changing climate. Clim Chang 79:315–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ott E, Frehner M, Frey H-U, Lüscher P (1997) Gebirgsnadelwälder: Ein praxisorientierter Leitfaden für eine standortgerechte Waldbehandlung. Verlag Haupt, Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  38. Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS (1998) Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Potvin C, Gotelli NJ (2008) Biodiversity enhances individual performance but does not affect survivorship in tropical trees. Ecol Lett 11:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rasche L, Fahse L, Zingg A, Bugmann H (2011) Getting a virtual forester fit for the challenge of climatic change. J Appl Ecol 48:1174–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rasche L, Fahse L, Zingg A, Bugmann H (2012) Enhancing gap model accuracy by modeling dynamic height growth and dynamic maximum tree height. Ecol Model 232:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C, Pounds JA (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schär C, Vidale PL, Lüthi D, Frei C, Häberli C, Liniger MA, Appenzeller C (2004) The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. Nature 427:332–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seidl R, Rammer W, Lexer MJ (2011) Climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in the Eastern Alps. Climatic Change 106:225–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shugart HH, Sedjo RA, Sohngen BL (2003) Forests and global climatecChange: potential impacts on US forest resources. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Airlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  46. Shvidenko A, Barber CV, Persson R (2005) Forest and woodland systems. In: Hassan RM, Scholes R, Ash N (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, vol 1. Island, Washington, DC, pp 585–621Google Scholar
  47. Thompson I, Mackey B, McNulty S, Mosseler A (2009) Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change: a synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Technical Series no. 43. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 67 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Thornton PE, Running SW, White MA (1997) Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. J Hydrol 190:214–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vidale P, Lüthi D, Wegmann R, Schär C (2007) European summer climate variability in a heterogeneous multi-model ensemble. Clim Chang 81:209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Whittaker RH (1952) A study of summer foliage insect communities in the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol Monogr 22:2–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Ecology, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Department of Environmental SciencesSwiss Federal Institute of Technology ETHZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Research Unit Sustainability and Global ChangeUniversity HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of MathematicsUniversity Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany

Personalised recommendations