Recovery dynamics and climate change effects to future New England forests
Forests throughout eastern North America continue to recover from broad-scale intensive land use that peaked in the nineteenth century. These forests provide essential goods and services at local to global scales. It is uncertain how recovery dynamics, the processes by which forests respond to past forest land use, will continue to influence future forest conditions. Climate change compounds this uncertainty.
We explored how continued forest recovery dynamics affect forest biomass and species composition and how climate change may alter this trajectory.
Using a spatially explicit landscape simulation model incorporating an ecophysiological model, we simulated forest processes in New England from 2010 to 2110. We compared forest biomass and composition from simulations that used a continuation of the current climate to those from four separate global circulation models forced by a high emission scenario (RCP 8.5).
Simulated forest change in New England was driven by continued recovery dynamics; without the influence of climate change forests accumulated 34 % more biomass and succeed to more shade tolerant species; Climate change resulted in 82 % more biomass but just nominal shifts in community composition. Most tree species increased AGB under climate change.
Continued recovery dynamics will have larger impacts than climate change on forest composition in New England. The large increases in biomass simulated under all climate scenarios suggest that climate regulation provided by the eastern forest carbon sink has potential to continue for at least a century.
KeywordsNew England Recovery dynamics Climate change LANDIS-II Forests
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Harvard Forest Long Term Ecological Research Program (Grant No. NSF-DEB 12-37491) and the Scenarios Society and Solutions Research Coordination Network (Grant No. NSF-DEB-13-38809). Additional funding was provided by an Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 105321 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Purdue University. We thank David Foster and two anonymous reviewers that helped improve the manuscript.
- Bechtold WA, Patterson PL (2005) The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program—national sampling design and estimation procedures. General technical report. SRS-80. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, AshvilleGoogle Scholar
- Daly C, Gibson W (2002) 103-year high-resolution temperature climate data set for the conterminous United States. The PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
- Dukes JS, Pontius J, Orwig D, Garnas JR, Rodgers VL, Brazee N, Cooke B, Theoharides KA, Stange EE, Harrington R, Ehrenfeld J, Gurevitch J, Lerdau M, Stinson K, Wick R, Ayres M (2009) Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of Northeastern North America: what can we predict? This article is one of a selection of papers from NE Forests 2100: a synthesis of climate change impacts on forests of the Northeastern US and Eastern Canada. Can J For Res 39:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Level IV ecoregions of EPA region 1. US EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)—National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), CorvallisGoogle Scholar
- Giasson M-A, Ellison A, Bowden R, Crill P, Davidson E, Drake J, Frey S, Hadley J, Lavine M, Melillo J, Munger J, Nadelhoffer K, Nicoll L, Ollinger S, Savage K, Steudler P, Tang J, Varner R, Wofsy S, Foster D, Finzi A (2013) Soil respiration in a Northeastern US temperate forest: a 22-year synthesis. Ecosphere 4:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gustafson EJ, De Bruijn AMG, Miranda BR, Sturtevant BR (2016) Using first principles to increase the robustness of forest landscape models for projecting climate change impacts. TBDGoogle Scholar
- Gustafson EJ, De Bruijn AMG, Pangle RE, Limousin J-M, McDowell NG, Pockman WT, Sturtevant BR, Muss JD, Kubiske ME (2014) Integrating ecophysiology and forest landscape models to improve projections of drought effects under climate change. Glob Change Biol 21:1–14Google Scholar
- Hijmans RJ (2014) Raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 2.2-12Google Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis, working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summary for policymakersGoogle Scholar
- Little EL (1971) Atlas of United States trees: conifers and important hardwoods, vol 1. US Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 1146Google Scholar
- Mather AS (1992) The forest transition. Area 24:367–379Google Scholar
- Mohan JE, Cox RM, Iverson LR (2009) Composition and carbon dynamics of forests in northeastern North America in a future, warmer world. This article is one of a selection of papers from NE Forests 2100: a synthesis of climate change impacts on forests of the Northeastern US and Eastern Canada. Can J For Res 39:213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/
- Wang WJ, He HS, Thompson III FR, Fraser JS, Dijak WD (in press) Changes in forest biomass and tree species distribution under climate change in the Northeastern US. Landscape EcolGoogle Scholar