Effects of using certain tree species in forest regeneration on regional wind damage risks in Finnish boreal forests under different CMIP5 projections

被引:0
作者
V.-P. Ikonen
A. Kilpeläinen
H. Strandman
A. Asikainen
A. Venäläinen
H. Peltola
机构
[1] University of Eastern Finland,Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences
[2] Natural Resources Institute Finland,undefined
[3] Finnish Meteorological Institute,undefined
来源
European Journal of Forest Research | 2020年 / 139卷
关键词
Climate change; Forest management; Gap-type forest ecosystem model; Mechanistic wind damage model; RCP4.5; RCP8.5; Tree species preference; Wind damage;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
We studied how the use of certain tree species in forest regeneration affected the regional wind damage risks to Finnish boreal forests under the current climate (1981–2010) and recent-generation global climate model (GCM) predictions (i.e., 10 GCMs of CMIP5, with wide variations in temperature and precipitation), using the representative concentration pathways RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 over the period 2010–2099. The study employed forest ecosystem and mechanistic wind damage risk model simulations on upland national forest inventory plots throughout Finland. The amount of wind damage was estimated based on the predicted critical wind speeds for uprooting trees and their probabilities. In a baseline management regime, forest regeneration was performed by planting the same tree species that was dominant before the final cut. In other management regimes, either Scots pine, Norway spruce or silver birch was planted on medium-fertility sites. Other management actions were performed as for a baseline management. The calculated amount of wind damage was greatest in southern and central Finland under CNRM-CM5 RCP8.5, and the smallest under HadGEM2-ES RCP8.5. The most severe climate projections (HadGEM2-ES RCP8.5 and GFDL-CM3 RCP8.5) affected the wind damage risk even more than did the tree species preferences in forest regeneration. The situation was the opposite for the less severe climate projections (e.g., MPI-ESM-MR RCP4.5 and MPI-ESM-MR RCP8.5). The calculated amount of wind damage was clearly greater in the south than in the north, due to differences in forest structure. The volume of growing stock is much higher in the south for the more vulnerable Norway spruce (and birch) than in the north, which is opposite for the less vulnerable Scots pine. The increasing risk of wind damage should be taken into account in forest management because it could amplify, or even cancel out, any expected increases in forest productivity due to climate change.
引用
收藏
页码:685 / 707
页数:22
相关论文
共 362 条
[31]  
Perera AH(2016)Projected decrease in wintertime bearing capacity on different forest and soil types in Finland under a warming climate Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 259 698-946
[32]  
Ruel J-C(2010)Risk of large-scale fires in boreal forests of Finland under changing climate For Ecol Manag 22 903-55
[33]  
Bergh J(2016)Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems Glob Change Biol 7 60-5172
[34]  
Freeman M(2016)Site-adapted admixed tree species reduce drought susceptibility of mature European beech Atmosphere 21 935-845
[35]  
Sigurdsson B(2015)Review on the projections of future storminess over the North Atlantic European region Glob Change Biol 63 41-153
[36]  
Kellomäki S(2011)Survival of Norway spruce remains higher in mixed stands under a dryer and warmer climate Tellus A 13 5163-36
[37]  
Laitinen K(2013)Evaluation and projections of temperature, precipitation and wind extremes over Europe in an ensemble of regional climate simulations Atmos Chem Phys 260 833-661
[38]  
Niinistö S(2010)Extreme winds over Europe in the ENSAMBLES regional climate models For Ecol Manag 135 143-4355
[39]  
Peltola H(2000)Impacts of climate change on timber production and regional risks of wind-induced damage to forests in Finland For Ecol Manag 41 17-208
[40]  
Linder S(1999)Mechanical stability of Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch: an analysis of tree-pulling experiments in Finland Clim Change 29 647-1568