Impacts of Climate Change on the Distribution of Larix Spp. and Pinus Sylvestris and Their Climatypes in Siberia

  • M. Tchebakova NadezdaEmail author
  • E. Rehfeldt Gerald
  • I. Parfenova Elena


Inter- and intraspecific effects of climate change were assessed for the dominant conifers of Siberia (60–140E and 48–75N): Larix spp. (L. sibirica, L. dahurica, and L. sukaczewii) and Pinus sylvestris. The approach employed a tri-variate (degree-days above 5 C, degree-days below 0 C, and a moisture index) estimate of the climatic envelope within which exists the actual ecological distribution of a species and their constituent climatypes (genotypes physiologically attuned to similar environments). Limits of the actual ecological distribution were approximated by reducing the climatic envelope according to effects of permafrost and interspecific competition. Climatypes were mapped within the climatic envelope according to the climatic interval that must separate populations for reasonable assurance of genetic differentiation. This interval was calculated from response functions that related 13-year growth and survival of a species to the difference in climate between the provenance of a climatype and the climate of numerous test sites distributed across Russia. Mapping species' distributions and their climatypes was done for the contemporary climate and for future climates predicted by the HadCM3GGa1 scenario of Hadley Centre.

The results showed that if the forests of the future are to reflect the adaptedness of today, the distribution of species will shift and genotypes within species will be redistributed. Some contemporary climatypes are projected to disappear from Siberia while others common elsewhere would evolve. To mitigate these effects, climatypes should be transferred today to the expected future location of their climatic optima, a distance that is likely to approach 700–1200 km for these species.


climate change climatic envelope climate transfer function climatypes interspecies competition Larix sibirica L. dahurica L. sukaczewii permafrost Siberia tree species Pinus sylvestris 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abaimov, A.P., Lesinski, J.A., Martinsson, O. and Milyutin, L.I.: 1998, Variability and Ecology of Siberian Larch Species. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Silviculture, Reports, No. 43, pp.Google Scholar
  2. Abaimov, A.P., Prokushkin, S.G., Matssura, Y., Osawa, A., Takenaka, A. and Kajimoto, T.: 1999, ‘Wildfire and cutting effect on larch ecosystem permafrost dynamics in central Siberia’, in M. Shibuya, K. Takanashi and G. Inoue (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on the Joint Siberian Permafrost Studies between Japan and Russia in 1998, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 48–58.Google Scholar
  3. Bobrov, E.G.: 1972, ‘History and systematics of larches’, in Komarov Lectures, Leningrad, Botanical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences Press, issue 25, pp. 1–96.Google Scholar
  4. Box, E.O., Crumpacker, D.W. and Hardin, P.S.: 1999, ‘Predicted effects of climatic change on distribution of ecologically important native tree and shrub species in Florida’, Climatic Change 41, 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budyko, M.I.: 1974. Climate and Life, New York, Academic Press, p. 508.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, J.S., Fastie, C., Hurtt, G., Jackson, S.T., Johnson, C., King, G.A., Lewis, M., Lynch, J., Pacala, S., Prentice, C., Schupp, E.W., Webb, T. and Wyckoff, P.: 1998, ‘Reid's paradox of rapid plant migration – dispersal theory and interpretation of paleoecological records’, Bioscience 48, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, M.B.:1989, ‘Lags in vegetation response to greenhouse warming’, Climatic Change 15, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, M.B. and Shaw, R.G.: 2001, ‘Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change’, Science 292, 673–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dostavalov, B.N. and Kudriavtsev, V.A.: 1967, Basic Permafrost Science, Moscow, Moscow University Press, p. 404.Google Scholar
  10. Dylis, N.V.: 1981, Larch, Moscow, Forestry Industry Press, p. 97.Google Scholar
  11. Eastman, J.R. (ed.): 2000, IDRISI32 Reference Guide, Worchester, MA, Clark Labs, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Ermolenko, P.M.: 1999, ‘Insperm centers of Pinus sylvestris in dark-needled forests of West Sayan’, in V.L. Cherepnin (ed.), Botanical Studies in Siberia, issue 7, pp. 86–90.Google Scholar
  13. Futyama, D.J.: 1979, Evolutionary Biology, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  14. GLOBE Task Team: 1999, in D.A. Hastings, P.K. Dunbar, G.M. Elphingstone, M. Bootz, H. Murakami, H. Maruyama, H. Masaharu, P. Holland, J. Payne, N.A. Bryant, T.L. Logan, J.-P. Muller, G. Schreier and J.S. MacDonald (eds.), The Global Land One-kilometer Base Elevation (GLOBE) Digital Elevation Model, Version 1.0. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, 325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80303, U.S.A. Digital data base on the World Wide Web (URL:
  15. Gordon, C., Cooper, C., Senior, C. et al.: 2000, ‘The simulation of SST, sea-ice extents and ocean heat transport in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments’, Climate Dynamics 16, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guisan, A., Holten, J.I., Spichiger, R., Tessier, L. (eds.): 1995, Potential Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in the Alps and Fennoscandian Mountains, Geneve. p. 195.Google Scholar
  17. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N.E.: 2000, ‘Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology’, Ecological Modelling 135, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins, S.I., Clark, J.S., Nathan, R., Hovestadt, T., Schurr, F., Fragoso, J.M.V., Aguiar, M.R., Ribbens, E. and Lavorel, S.: 2003, ‘Firecasting plant migration rates: managing uncertainty for risk assessment’, Journal of Ecology 91, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hulme, M., Sheard, N. and Markham, A.: 1999, Global Climate Change Scenarios, Norwich, UK, Climatic Research Unit, p. 6.Google Scholar
  20. Hutchinson, M.F.: 2000, ANUSPLIN Version 4.1 User's Guide, Canberra, Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
  21. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2001, ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Third Assessment Report’, (URL:
  22. Malevsky-Malevich, S.P., Molkentin, E.K., Nadyozhina, E.D. and Sklyarevich, O.B.: 2001. ‘Numerical simulation of permafrost parameters distribution’, Cold Region Science and Technology 32, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mátyás, C.:1994, ‘Modeling climate change effects with provenance test data’, Tree Physiology 14, 797–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milyutin, L.I.: 1983, ‘Interrelations and variability of allied species of woody plants in the contact zone of their natural range for L. sibirica and L. dahurica’, PhD Thesis, Krasnoyarsk, Forest and Wood Institute, p. 418, (In Russian)Google Scholar
  25. Iroshnikov, A.I.:1977, ‘Provenance trials of conifers in south Siberia’, In Provenance trials and plantations of conifers in Siberia, Nauka, Novosibirsk, Russia, pp. 4–110, (In Russian)Google Scholar
  26. Iverson, L.R. and Prasad, A.M.: 1998, ‘Predicting abundance of 80 Tree species following climate change in the Eastern United States’, Ecological Monographs 68, 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nazimova, D.I., Polikarpov, N.P. and Tchebakova, N.M.: 1990, ‘Climatic ordination of forest vegetation zones and altitudinal belts as a basis of general classification of forest cover in Siberia’, in Proceedings of the International Symposium, Boreal Forests, Stability, Dynamics and Anthro[ogenic Press, Arkhangelsk, Forest State Committee Press, pp. 49–61.Google Scholar
  28. Noss, R.F.: 2001, ‘Beyond Koyoto: Forest management in a time of rapid climate change’, Conservation Biology 15, 578–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polikarpov, N.P., Tchebakova, N.M. and Nazimova, D.I.: 1986, Climate and Mountains Forest of Southern Siberia, Novosibirsk, Nauka, p. 225.Google Scholar
  30. Pozdnyakov, L.K.: 1986, Forestry on permafrost, Novosibirsk, Nauka, p. 192.Google Scholar
  31. Putenikhin, V.P., Farukshina, G.G and Shigapov, Z.K.: 2004, Larix sukaczewii in the Urals’, in Variability and population-genetic structure, Moscow, Nauka, p. 278.Google Scholar
  32. Reference books on climate of the USSR: 1967–1970, Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat.Google Scholar
  33. Rehfeldt, G.E, Tchebakova, N.M. and Barnhardt, L.K.:1999a, ‘Efficacy of climate transfer functions: Introduction of Eurasian populations of Larix into Alberta’, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29, 1660–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rehfeldt, G.E., Ying, C.C., Spittlehouse, D.L. and Hamilton, D.L.: 1999b, ‘Genetic responses to climate in Pinus contorta: Niche breadth, climate change and reforestation’, Ecological Monographs 69, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rehfeldt, G.E., Ying, C.C. and Wykoff, W.R.: 2001, ‘Physiologic plasticity, evolution and impacts of a changing climate on Pinus contorta’, Climatic Change 50, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rehfeldt, G.E., Tchebakova, N.M., Parfenova, Y.I., Wykoff, W.R., Kouzmina, N.A. and Milyutin, L.I.: 2002, ‘Intraspecific responses to climate in Pinus sylvestris’, Global Change Biology 8, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rehfeldt, G.E., Tchebakova, N.M., Milyutin, L.I., Parfenova, Y.I., Wykoff, W.R. and Kouzmina, N.A.: 2003, ‘Assessing population responses to climate in Pinus sylvestris and Larix spp. of Eurasia with Climate-Transfer Models’, Eurasian J. of Forest Reseach 6–2, 83–98.Google Scholar
  38. Rehfeldt, G.E., Tchebakova, N.M. and Parfenova, E.: 2004, ‘Genetic responses to climate and climate change in conifers of the temperate and boreal forests’, Recent Research and Development of Genetic Breeding 1, 113–130.Google Scholar
  39. Rehfeldt, G.E.: 2004, ‘Interspecific and intraspecific variation in Picea engelmannii and its congeneric cohorts: Biosystematics, genecology and climate-change’, U.S. Department of Agric, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rept., RMRS-GTR-134.Google Scholar
  40. Shumilova, L.V.: 1962, Botanical Geography of Siberia, Tomsk, Tomsk University Press, p. 440.Google Scholar
  41. Stephenson, N.L.: 1998, ‘Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: Biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales’, Journal of Biogeography 25(5), 855–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokolov, S.Y., Svyazeva O.A. and Kubli, B.A.: Ranges of Trees and Bushes of the USSR, Leningrad, Nauka, p. 164 (In Russian)Google Scholar
  43. Tchebakova, N.M., Monserud, R., Lemmans, R. and Golovanov, S.: 1993’, A global vegetation model based on the climatological approach of Budyko’, Journal of Biogeography 25, 59–83.Google Scholar
  44. Tchebakova, N.M., Monserud, R. and Nazimova, D.I.: 1994, ‘A Siberian vegetation model based on climatic parameters’, Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24, 1597–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tchebakova, N.M., Rehfeldt, G.E. and Parfenova, E.I.: 2003, ‘Redistribution of vegetation zones and populations of Larix sibirica Ledeb. and Pinus sylvestris L. in Central Siberia in a warming climate’, Siberian Ecological Journal 10, 677–686 [in Russian]Google Scholar
  46. Turesson, G.: 1925, ‘The plant species in relation to habitat and climate’, Hereditas 6, 147–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Velichko, A.A. and Nechaev, V.P.: 1992, ‘Evaluation of the permafrost zone dynamics in Northern Eurasia under global climate warming’, Transactions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Geography 324, 667–671 [in Russian]Google Scholar
  48. Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C. and Moss, R.H. (eds.): 1996, Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, p. 800.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Tchebakova Nadezda
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Rehfeldt Gerald
    • 2
  • I. Parfenova Elena
    • 1
  1. 1.V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of Sciences, AcademgorodokKrasnoyarskRussia
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationForestry Sciences LaboratoryMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations