Recovery dynamics and climate change effects to future New England forests

41Citations
Citations of this article
92Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Context: 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. Objectives: We explored how continued forest recovery dynamics affect forest biomass and species composition and how climate change may alter this trajectory. Methods: 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). Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Duveneck, M. J., Thompson, J. R., Gustafson, E. J., Liang, Y., & de Bruijn, A. M. G. (2017). Recovery dynamics and climate change effects to future New England forests. Landscape Ecology, 32(7), 1385–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0415-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free