Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 136, Issue 2, pp 367–379 | Cite as

Relative vulnerability to climate change of trees in western North America

  • Michael J. CaseEmail author
  • Joshua J. Lawler
Article

Abstract

Many recent changes in tree species distributions, mortality, and growth rates have been linked to changes in climate. Managing forests in the face of climate change will require a basic understanding of which tree species will be most vulnerable to climate change and in what ways they will be vulnerable. We assessed the relative vulnerability to climate change of 11 tree species in western North America using a multivariate approach to quantify elements of sensitivity to climate change, exposure to climate change, and the capacity to adapt to climate change. Our assessment was based on a combination of expert knowledge, published studies, and projected changes in climate. Of the 11 species, Garry oak (Quercus garryana) was determined to be the most vulnerable, largely because of its relatively high sensitivity. Garry oak occupies some of the driest low woodland and savanna sites from British Columbia to California and is highly dependent on disturbances, such as periodic, low intensity fire. Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) was determined to be the least vulnerable, largely because of its adaptive capacity. Big leaf maple can reproduce quickly after disturbances and its seeds can disperse long distances potentially allowing it to move in response to a changing climate. Our analyses provide a framework for assessing vulnerability and for determining why some species will likely be more vulnerable than others. Such information will be critical as natural resource managers and conservation practitioners strive to address the impacts of climate change with limited funds.

Keywords

Adaptive Capacity Dispersal Ability Sensitivity Score Western Larch High Adaptive Capacity 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This publication was partially supported by grants from US Geological Survey, the US Park Service, and the US Department of the Interior Northwest Climate Science Center. Thomas Hinckley, Don McKenzie, and three anonymous referees provided helpful comments on an early draft of the manuscript. We are grateful to the many experts and groups of experts who participated in our series of climate-change workshops, especially David Giblin, Warren Devine, Joe Rocchio, and Regina Rochefort. We are also grateful to Carole Guizzetti who assisted with figures.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1608_MOESM1_ESM.docx (483 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 483 kb)

References

  1. Booth TH (2013) Eucalypt plantations and climate change. For Ecol Manag 301:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth TH, Broadhurst LM, Pinkard E, Prober SM, Dillon SK, Bush D, Pinyopusarerk K, Doran JC, Ivkovich M, Young AG (2015) Native forests and climate change: lessons from eucalypts. For Ecol Manag 347:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Case MJ, Lawler JJ, Tomasevic JA (2015) Relative sensitivity to climate change of species in northwestern North America. Biol Conserv 187:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerer CF, Johnson EJ (1997) The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: how can experts know so much and predict so badly? In: Goldstein WM, Hogarth RM (eds) Research on judgment and decision making: currents, connections and controversies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell LM (2002) Science and sustainable use: views of marine turtle conservation experts. Ecol Appl 12:1229–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coops NC, Waring RH (2011) Estimating the vulnerability of fifteen tree species under changing climate in Northwest North America. Ecol Model 222:2119–2129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly C, Gibson WP, Taylor GH, Johnson GL, Pasteris P (2002) A knowledge–based approach to the statistical mapping of climate. Clim Res 22:99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawson TP, Jackson ST, House JI, Prentice IC, Mace GM (2011) Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 332:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devine W, Aubry C, Bower A, Miller J, Maggiulli Ahr N (2012) Climate change and forest trees in the Pacific Northwest: a vulnerability assessment and recommended actions for national forests. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Erickson VJ, Aubry C, Berrang P, Blush T, Bower AD, Crane BS, DeSpain T, Gwaze D, Hamlin J, Horning M, Johnson R, Mahalovich M, Maldonado M, Sniezko R, St. Clair B (2012) Genetic resource management and climate change: genetic options for adapting national forests to climate change. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Foden WB, Butchart SHM, Stuart SN, Vié JC, Akçakaya H et al (2013) Identifying the world’s most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLoS ONE 8:e65427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glick P, Stein BA, Edelson NA (eds) (2011) Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchinson MF (1989) A new objective method for spatial interpolation of meteorological variables from irregular networks applied to the estimation of monthly mean solar radiation, temperature, precipitation and windrun. Division of Water Resources Technical Memorandum, CSIRO AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawler JJ, Olden JD (2011) Reframing the debate over assisted colonization. Front Ecol Environ 9:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Littell JS, Oneil EE, McKenzie D, Hicke JA, Lutz JA, Norheim RA, Elsner MM (2010) Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA. Clim Chang 102:129–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B (2001) Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:481–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKenzie D, Peterson DW, Peterson DL, Thornton PE (2003) Climatic and biophysical controls on conifer species distributions in mountain forests of Washington State, USA. J Biogeogr 30:1093–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marris E (2009) Planting the forest for the future. Nature 459:906–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin TG, Burgman MA, Fidler F, Kuhnert PM, Low-Choy S, McBride M, Mengersen K (2012) Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conserv Biol 26:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Peterson DL, Millar CI, Joyce LA, Furniss MJ, Halofsky JE, Neilson RP, Morelli TL (2011) Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options. PNW-GTR-855. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  27. Pianka ER (1970) Comparative autecology of the lizard Cnemidophorus Tigris in different parts of its georgraphic range. Ecology 51:703–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidtling RC (2001) Southern pine seed sources. GTR-SRS-44. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  29. Schröter D, Polsky C, Patt A (2005) Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 10:573–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shrader-Frechette K (1996) Value judgments in verifying and validating risk assessment models. In: Cothern CR (ed) Handbook for environmental risk decision making: values, perception and ethics. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith ER, Tran LT, O’Neil RV (2003) Regional vulnerability assessment for the mid-Atlantic region: evaluation of integration methods and assessments results. US Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/R-03/082Google Scholar
  32. Spittlehouse DL, Stewart RB (2003) Adaptation to climate change in forest management. BC J Ecosyst Manag 4:1–11Google Scholar
  33. Stein BA, Glick P, Edelson N, Staudt A (eds) (2014) Climate-smart conservation: putting adaptation principles into practice. National Wildlife Federation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephens SL, McIver JD, Boerner REJ, Fettig CJ, Fontaine JB, Hartsough BR, Kennedy PL, Schwilk DW (2012) The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. Bioscience 62:549–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson P, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability Science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8074–8079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson RS, Anderson KH, Bartlein PJ (1999) Atlas of relations between climatic parameters and distributions of important trees and shrubs in North America. USGS Professional Paper 1650. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1650–a/. Accessed 24 October 2014
  37. US Geological Survey (1999) Digital representation of “Atlas of United States Trees” by EL Little, Jr. http://gec.cr.usgs.gov/data/little. Accessed 1 August 2012
  38. Wang T, Hamann A, Spittlehouse DL, Murdock TQ (2012) ClimateWNA–high–resolution spatial climate data for western North America. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 51:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Westerling AL, Turner MG, Smithwick EAH, Romme WH, Ryan MG (2011) Continued warming could transform Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid–21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:13165–13170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams JW, Jackson ST, Kutzbach JE (2007) Projected distributions of novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:5738–5742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams SE, Shoo LP, Isaac JL, Hoffmann AA, Langham G (2008) Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS Biol 6:e325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams MI, Dumroese RK (2013) Preparing for climate change: forestry and assisted migration. J For 111:287–297Google Scholar
  44. Vieilledent G, Cornu C, Sanchezd AC, Leong Pock-Tsy J-M, Danthu P (2013) Vulnerability of baobab species to climate change and effectiveness of the protected area network in Madagascar: towards new conservation priorities. Biol Conserv 166:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environmental and Forest SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations