Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vulnerability assessment for European shrublands to climate change
Claus BeierRisoe National Laboratory
Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. Email: [email protected]
Thanks to:Bridget Emmett (UK), Albert Tietema (NL)
Inger K. Schmidt (DK), Josep Penuelas (SP), Paolo de Angelis (IT), Edith Kovacs Lang (HU)
and all VULCAN and CLIMAITE participants
ManipulatorYears of experience in ecosystem manipulation studies at the field
scale (acid rain, nutrients, climate change) and plot scale modelling
BiogeochemistNutrients, C, N
Coordinator of CLIMOOR, VULCAN+ New Danish CLIMAITE
Claus BeierRisoe National Laboratory
Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. Email: [email protected]
Shrublands, vulnerability, climate changeand experimental manipulations
Shrublands, vulnerability, climate changeand experimental manipulations
Why?Shrublands often vulnerable ecosystems
Climate change affects key biological processes,ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services
Manipulations often needed to know what happens
Conceptual problemInvolves at least CO2, temp. and water = 3 factors
Experimentally challenging
What?Climate change effects on key processes = services
Biogeochemistry, biodiversity and ecosystem/land protectionFuture trends
Manipulation examples
Climate
CanopyReflectance
Ecosystem& soil CO2
Climate impacts on ecosystem processes and services
Waterquality
PLANTPlant chemistry
Nutrient storage
Root growth
Plant species change
Phenology
Fauna & Herbivory
SOILC&N
mineralisation
Nutrient cycling
Litterfall & decay
C storage
Mykhoriza
Soil fauna Biodiversity
Soil fertility
Climate feedback
Drinking water
Esperimental work
Biogeochemistry
BiogeochemistryN-balance
Biology
decomposition of organic matter
Possible biogeochemical effects of climate change
release of nitrogen
acidificationof soil and water
fertilisation of soils, surfacewaters and coastal marine areas
plant growth
emission of greenhouse gases
Elevated CO2Elevated temperature
Field scale manipulation of temperature and CO2in Norwegian forest ecosystem
KIM catchment560 PPM CO2
+ 3-5 oC air temperature (3.7)
controltreatment
CLIM
Wright, R.F. 1998. Ecosystems 1:216-225.
n e t r e te n t io n N O 3 + N H 4
-2 0
-1 0
0
1 0
2 0
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997meq
/m/y
r
K IM T K IM C
C L IM E XR A IN
s in k
s o u rc e
K I M (C O 2 + w a r m i n g )
Increased nitrogen mineralisation because of warming
CLIMWarming induced N leaching
Ecosystem switches from N sink to N source- biogeochemistry IS affected
Wright, R.F. 1998. Ecosystems 1:216-225.
Climate change has the potential to affectdrinking water and surface waters
Vulnerability assessment of shrubland ecosystems in Europe under climatic changes
A joint European research project funded by EU
Field scale warming and drying of heathland
Co-ordinator:Claus Beier, RISØ National Laboratory, Denmark
Partners
Risoe National Laboratory – RISOE –Denmark – Claus Beier
Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute – DFLRI – Denmark – Inger Kappel Schmidt
University of Amsterdam – UVA - the Netherlands – Albert Tietema
Plant Research International – PLANT - the Netherlands – Ton Gorissen
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology – CEH –UK – Bridget Emmett
Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications – CREAF – Spain – Josep Penuelas
University of Tuscia - UNITUS – Italy –Guiseppe Scarascia Mugnozza
Hungarian Academy of Sciences – IEB -Hungary – Edith Kovacs Lang
University of Wales – UWB – UK – GarethEdward Jones
Natural History Museum – NATMUS -Denmark – Henning Pedersen
Summer drought
IR reflection
Night time warmingTimer Rain censor
Control
Treatment concept
Treatments in reality
Precipitation
Temperature
United Kingdom
Italy
Hungary
The Netherlands
Denmark
Spain
Gradients
Temperature gradient
0
5
10
15
20
25
UK NL DK SP
Mea
n ye
arly
Tem
pera
ture
(oC)
TreatmentTemp
Precipitation gradient
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
UK NL DK SP
Prec
ipita
tion
(mm
/yr)
TreatmentP rec ipita tio n
Nitrogen deposition
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
UK NL DK SP
N-de
p (k
g/ha
/yr)
Nitro gen depo s itio n
Growing degree days
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
UK NL DK SP
GDD
per
yea
r
Trea tmentGDD
Gradients and treatments
0
25
50
10 20 30 40N deposition, kgN ha-1 yr-1
Nitr
ogen
leac
hing
kg N
ha-1
yr-1
Control
Schmidt et al., 2004. Ecosystems 7:638-649
Interaction between N deposition and climate
75Leaching response depend on N status (e.g. N deposition)
Warming
Maybe change ?
Climate change has the potential to affect
drinking water and surface waters
- but the effects depend on the nitrogen status
-Biology may be stronger than biologists
- and nitrogen may limit growth response to climate change
BiogeochemistryOther nutrients may determine the response to climate
Phosphorus limits plant growth response to climate in many areas (here NL)
- progressive nutrient limitation (nitrogen often mentioned)
Biological effects – Limiting nutrients
Shoots: P (mg g-1)
0.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.90
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
CDH
Nutrients may limit growth response to climate change
BiologyBiodiversity
Effects on plant growth
Change in annual growth of single species
-30-25-20-15-10-505
1015
Spain
War
min
g ch
ange
(% o
f con
trol)
Species 1Species 2
Species specific responses to warming - implications for biodiversity
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
Annual 03-02 Annual 04-03
Eric
a m
ultif
lora W W
0
2
4
6
8
10
Glo
bula
ria a
lypu
m
CDW
(W)(D)
Annual Seasonal
Stem
long
itudi
nal i
ncre
men
t gr
owth
(cm
)
2002 2003 Aut 03Spr 03Aut 02Spr 02
Species specific and season specific growth response
20
40
60
80
100
p=0.0001
*
**
*
(*)*
p=0.0001
*
**
0
20
40
60
80
80 100 120 140 160 100 120 140 160 180
p=0.0947
Vegetative growing phenology
Eric
a m
ultif
lora
Glo
bula
ria a
lypu
m
Gro
win
g br
anch
es (%
)
2003 2004DOY
Control vs warming
Leaf unfolding advanced under warming– species specific response
Biological effects – species specific responses
• Warming by 1 deg. increases Calluna cover whilst Empetrumdeclines
• Why?
-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.3
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Bio
mas
s (K
g m
-2)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
CallunaEmpetrum
Contrasting response of two species to warming
R2 = 0.4775
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
0.00 2.00 4.00
Winter Temperature
Em
petru
m P
rodu
ctio
n
**
• Empetrum declines with winter warming
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Mea
n le
af le
ngth
/sho
ot (m
m)
condroughtheat
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Change in phenology in Denmark – grassesSeasonality changes – spring starts earlier
Biological effects – why does species change
Advanced leaf unfolding by warming
- may be an advantage for some plants
Biological effects – why does species change
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
CONTROLWARMINGDROUGHT
Leaf
unf
oldi
ng
Temperature
North countries
Southern countries Climate change has the potential to affect
phenology (timing)– different species respond
differently- potential mechanism for
species change
Herbivory - responds to warming
Effects on herbivory
Herbivory foliar damage
020406080
100120140160180
UK Denmark NL Spain
War
min
g ch
ange
(% o
f con
trol)
Warming has the potential to affect herbivory– often species specific attacks = different species affected differently
Loss of species in Spain with (warming) and drought
Species change - biodiversity
Biological effects – species loss
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
CAT
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
CAT
Warming
Control
Drought
Climate change has the potential to affectspecies composition – implications for biodiversity
C-balance
C-balance and climate change
Atmospheric CO2
Soil respBiomassuptake
Which one is most reactive to climate change??
Carbon loss
Soil resp
Laboratory studies – general expectation for carbon
North South
Sen
sitiv
ity to
war
min
g (Q
10)
Plant production
Soil respiration
High
Low
- we expect soils and plants to be sensitive to warming – most in North- and soils to be more sensitive than plants – especially at colder climates
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
UK DK NL HUN ES IT
% c
hang
e re
lativ
e to
con
trol
droughtwarming
Increased carbon loss at northern sites, reduced loss in southern sites
Effects on carbon loss
Theoretical sensitivity of soil respiration to warming confirmed across Vulcan sites
Carbon loss
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0 10 20Mean annual air temperature (deg. C)
Q10
of c
ontro
l plo
ts
But treatments affect this relationship
Carbon loss
Climate change has the potential to affect carbon loss– but the response is not equaly strong at all climates
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20
Mean annual air temperature (deg. C)
Q10
of
all
treat
men
ts
controldroughtwarming
15% loss in the amount of carbon in the top soil in Denmark …..and this is with only moderate climate
treatments
Carbon loss
% Carbon in top soil
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Con Drought Heat
..and causes a long term change in the capacity of soil to hold water (Wales and NL)
Drought has the potential to affect carbon loss – general reduction except at wet sites
- it has the capacity to change soil structure.
Drought and soil structure
98 99 00 01 02 03 04
chan
ge fr
om c
ontro
l (%
)
Measurements taken during the drought treatmentMeasurements taken outside the drought period
Carbon gain
Biomassuptake
-20-20
-15-15
-10-10
-5-5
00
55
1010
1515
2020
War
min
g C
hang
e (%
of c
ontr
ol)
War
min
g C
hang
e (%
of c
ontr
ol)
*
-20-20
-15-15
-10-10
-5-5
00
55
1010
1515
2020
Dro
ught
Cha
nge
(% o
f con
trol
)D
roug
ht C
hang
e (%
of c
ontr
ol)
*
RESULTSRESULTS
� 22% -> � 14% biomass production in drought plots in Garraf
� 1ºC -> � 15% biomass production in warming plots in Wales
Total aboveground biomass (1998-2000)
NetherlandsWales Catalonia NetherlandsWales Catalonia
Carbon gain
North South
Sens
itivi
ty to
war
min
g (Q
10)
Plant production
Soil respiration
High
Low
0
100
200
300
400
0 5 10 15 20
Mean annual Temp., oCB
iom
ass p
roduc
tion,
g m
-2 y
r-1
Control
Warming
Long term gradient – what if species change?Short term experiment – what if species change?
Soil respiration and plant growth - relationship to temperature
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 5 10 15 20Mean annual temp, oC
Soi
l res
pira
tion
gC k
g so
ilC-1
yr-1
0
100
200
300
400
0 5 10 15 20
Mean annual Temp., oCB
iom
ass p
roduc
tion,
g m
-2 y
r-1
3 years experiment (short term)- soil respiration is sensitive to warming
-- but less than plant growth (on the long term balance must shift)-Opposite to expectations - asynchrony
Control
ControlWarming
Warming
Warming has the potential to increase growth – mainly at colder sites (on the short term)
– response stronger than expected- we still do not know which C process is the strongest
Biological effects
Reduced plant cover in southern countries will increase erosion risk.
50
60
70
80
90
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
(*)
Total aboveground plant biomass
Changes in total aaboveground plant biomass
%
2003-19981998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Reduced biomass with warming and drought in Spain
Warming and drought has the potential to reduce plant cover at warm sites– increased risk for soil erosion
Biological effects
Ratio live:dead leaves
Festuca vaginata
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
2001 (pre-treatment) 2002 2003
Hits
of l
ive
leav
es /
hits
of d
ead
leav
es
control
heat trmt.
drought trmt.
p<0,05
Relatively more dead plants (HU)more fuel - increased fire risk
Drought has the potential to increase dead plant material fraction– increased risk for fires
Vulnerable regions
16. EROSION AND DESERTIFICATION
Recurrència d’incendis >30 ha1975-1995
Recurrència d’incendis >30 ha1975-1995
Recurrence of fires
Break?
Risk assessment and socio-economic analysis
What are the relative risks to shrublands in the UK, Spain and Hungary, arising from climate change and
other impacts?What are the associated costs?
Risk and vulnerability assessment
Before heather beetle attackAfter heather beetle attack
Ecosystem disturbances
Complete harvest of all aboveground vegetation to promote regrowth of Calluna
Ecosystem disturbance =
Heather beetle infestation 1999 - 2000+ complete harvest September 2000
Effect on mineralisation
Net N-mineralisation - Mols
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
mgN
gO
M-1
day
-1 Control Warming Intact
*
Beetles stimulate mineralisation
Warming/grazing stimulates mineralisation
Effects on soil solution
0
1
2
3
4
5
dec-98 jul-99 jan-00 aug-00 feb-01 sep-01
Tota
l N (m
g/l)
Control
Warming
Seepage
0
5
10
15
20
dec-98 jul-99 jan-00 aug-00 feb-01 sep-01
Tota
l N(m
g/l)
O-layer
Warming
Beetles
Cut
Warming(& beetles) stimulates leachingin O-layer
Beetles & cutting cause leaching
Warming induced plant growth increase retention
Biogeochemical budgets
Retention of nitrogen in the soil at Mols - 1999 & 2000
0
50
100
150
Con-NO3 Warm-NO3 Con-NH4 Warm-NH4
% o
f inp
ut r
etai
ned
% retention 1999% retention 2000
Beetles induce short term high loss
Effects of disturbance• significant increase in nitrogen mineralisation –bigger than warming
• periodic increase in soil water concentrations
• reduced retention of nitrogen
• dramatic changes in ecosystem characteristics (new ecosystem type) – probably dependent onecosystem status before disturbance
Effects of disturbance
Very different risks identified for the 3 countries (urbanisation, abandonment etc)
In Spain, erosion the greatest concern for people
Risk analysis and costs
2 degree warmer Spain
36 - 69 Euros/person/year
Climate change is a multifactor problem
All you have seen so far was based on single factor experiments
Next generation experiments
Climate change experiments - Starting all over again
Multifactor experiment
CO2 (FACE) warming, water and Nat Jasper Ridge, US
Effects of elevated CO2, temperature and altered precipitation–effects are not additive
Effect of climate drivers on NPP
-10
0
10
20
30
Contro
l
CO2
Precip
CO2+P
Temp
T+CO2
P+TP+T
+CO2
Drivers
Cha
nge
rela
tive
to
cont
rol
Jasper Ridge – effects on growth
Shaw et al., Nature 2002
Maybe because of soil-plant interactions – e.g. microbial removal of nutrients
A new Danish multifactor project
www.climaite.dk
CO2, temperature and water manipulations
510 ppm CO2
Ambient CO2
Summer drought
+2 oC
CO2
Control
+/- H2O +/- H2O
+/- H2O+/- H2O
+T
+T
+T
+T
Control”0”
CO2 CO2
CO2CO2
CO2, temperature and drought
CO2FACE
PassiveNight timewarming
Waterexclusion(summer)
BiogeochemistryClimate change has the potential to affect drinking water and surface waters- but the effects depend on the nitrogen status- and nitrogen (nutrients in general) may limit growth response to climate change
BiologyClimate change has the potential to affect species composition – implications for biodiversity (species and season specific responses – e.g phenology, winter temperature, herbivory)
Carbon storageWarming has the potential to increase carbon loss from soil – most in cold sites and less in warm (maybe even negative)Drought generally reduce C loss from soils, except at wet sites – but also interaction with plant growth)Warming has the potential to increase growth at colder sites on the short term – and response stronger than expected
Soil structure – growth mediaWarming has the potential to reduce plant cover at warm sites – increased risk for soil erosionDrought has the capacity to change soil structure.Fire protectionDrought has the potential to increase dead plant material fraction – increased risk for fires
Conclusions – climate change and service threats
Experimental manipulations and climate changeQuestions to the biodiversity community
Experimental manipulations and climate changeQuestions to the biodiversity community
Discussions
What are the problems with experiments? – and withobservations? – what is a good climate change experiment?
Biodiversity – we need studies focussing on ”functionalimplications” and”ecosystem functioning” = what are thefunctional implications if biodiversity change (opposite to traditionaltaxonomy)
Genetics and adaptation – is genetic diversity parallel to species diversity?
How do we compare climate and LUC?
What do the modellers need?
The end
