Accounting for forest management in the estimation of forest carbon balance using the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS (v4.0, r9710): implementation and evaluation of simulations for Europe

Lindeskog, Mats; Smith, Benjamin; Lagergren, Fredrik; Сычева, Е.М.; Ficko, Andrej; Pretzsch, Hans; Rammig, Anja

doi:10.5194/gmd-14-6071-2021

Cited by 35 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(97 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biophysical interactions between the land surface and the atmosphere have been incorporated into regional ESMs in order to assess the impacts of changes in land use and land cover on regional climate and terrestrial ecosystems. Still, biogeochemical processes related to the carbon cycle are lacking, as are explicit forest management actions (Lindeskog et al, 2021), while explicit descriptions of some disturbances (e.g. wildfires, major storms, and insect attacks) are under development in ESMs.…”

Section: Nutrient Inputs From Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: a summary

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Based on the Baltic Earth Assessment Reports of this thematic issue in Earth System Dynamics and recent peer-reviewed literature, current knowledge of the effects of global warming on past and future changes in climate of the Baltic Sea region is summarised and assessed. The study is an update of the Second Assessment of Climate Change (BACC II) published in 2015 and focuses on the atmosphere, land, cryosphere, ocean, sediments, and the terrestrial and marine biosphere. Based on the summaries of the recent knowledge gained in palaeo-, historical, and future regional climate research, we find that the main conclusions from earlier assessments still remain valid. However, new long-term, homogenous observational records, for example, for Scandinavian glacier inventories, sea-level-driven saltwater inflows, so-called Major Baltic Inflows, and phytoplankton species distribution, and new scenario simulations with improved models, for example, for glaciers, lake ice, and marine food web, have become available. In many cases, uncertainties can now be better estimated than before because more models were included in the ensembles, especially for the Baltic Sea. With the help of coupled models, feedbacks between several components of the Earth system have been studied, and multiple driver studies were performed, e.g. projections of the food web that include fisheries, eutrophication, and climate change. New datasets and projections have led to a revised understanding of changes in some variables such as salinity. Furthermore, it has become evident that natural variability, in particular for the ocean on multidecadal timescales, is greater than previously estimated, challenging our ability to detect observed and projected changes in climate. In this context, the first palaeoclimate simulations regionalised for the Baltic Sea region are instructive. Hence, estimated uncertainties for the projections of many variables increased. In addition to the well-known influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation, it was found that also other low-frequency modes of internal variability, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability, have profound effects on the climate of the Baltic Sea region. Challenges were also identified, such as the systematic discrepancy between future cloudiness trends in global and regional models and the difficulty of confidently attributing large observed changes in marine ecosystems to climate change. Finally, we compare our results with other coastal sea assessments, such as the North Sea Region Climate Change Assessment (NOSCCA), and find that the effects of climate change on the Baltic Sea differ from those on the North Sea, since Baltic Sea oceanography and ecosystems are very different from other coastal seas such as the North Sea. While the North Sea dynamics are dominated by tides, the Baltic Sea is characterised by brackish water, a perennial vertical stratification in the southern subbasins, and a seasonal sea ice cover in the northern subbasins.

show abstract

Section: Nutrient Inputs From Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: a summary

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The boreal forest biome is an important global reservoir of terrestrial carbon (367-1716 Pg C) [1]. However, its biogeochemical cycling and thus carbon storage is sensitive to forest management practices [2]. Specifically, tree growth is often hampered by waterlogging in humid soils, which is also a typical feature in boreal upland forest areas [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drainage Ditch Cleaning Has No Impact on the Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Balances in a Recent Forest Clear-Cut in Boreal Sweden

Tong

Nilsson

Drott

et al. 2022

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ditch cleaning (DC) is increasingly applied to facilitate forest regeneration following clear-cutting in Fennoscandinavia. However, its impact on the ecosystem carbon and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances is poorly understood. We conducted chamber measurements to assess the initial DC effects on carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) fluxes in a recent forest clear-cut on wet mineral soil in boreal Sweden. Measurements were conducted in two adjacent areas over two pre-treatments (2018/19) and two years (2020/21) after conducting DC in one area. We further assessed the spatial variation of fluxes at three distances (4, 20, 40 m) from ditches. We found that DC lowered the water table level by 12 ± 2 cm (mean ± standard error) and topsoil moisture by 0.12 ± 0.01 m3 m−3. DC had a limited initial effect on the net CO2 exchange and its component fluxes. CH4 emissions were low during the dry pre-treatment years but increased particularly in the control area during the wet years of 2020/21. Distance to ditch had no consistent effects on CO2 and CH4 fluxes. Model extrapolations suggest that annual carbon emissions decreased over the four years from 6.7 ± 1.4 to 1.6 ± 1.6 t-C ha−1 year−1, without treatment differences. Annual CH4 emissions contributed <2.5% to the carbon balance but constituted 39% of the GHG balance in the control area during 2021. Overall, our study suggests that DC modified the internal carbon cycling but without significant impact on the carbon and GHG balances.

show abstract

“…LPJ‐GUESS has been designed to simulate the vegetation response under future climate change, including responses to climate extremes. As such it has been benchmarked to a wide variety of independent datasets (e.g., Chang et al., 2017; Haverd et al., 2020; Ito et al., 2017; Lindeskog et al., 2021; B. Smith et al., 2014).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2012]) with adaptations as specified in Lindeskog et al. (2021). However, we removed the maximum temperature of the coldest month bioclimatic limit for establishment (tcmax est ) of certain species (as in Hickler et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trade‐Offs for Climate‐Smart Forestry in Europe Under Uncertain Future Climate

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests mitigate climate change by storing carbon and reducing emissions via substitution effects of wood products. Additionally, they provide many other important ecosystem services (ESs), but are vulnerable to climate change; therefore, adaptation is necessary. Climate‐smart forestry combines mitigation with adaptation, whilst facilitating the provision of many ESs. This is particularly challenging due to large uncertainties about future climate. Here, we combined ecosystem modeling with robust multi‐criteria optimization to assess how the provision of various ESs (climate change mitigation, timber provision, local cooling, water availability, and biodiversity habitat) can be guaranteed under a broad range of climate futures across Europe. Our optimized portfolios contain 29% unmanaged forests, and implicate a successive conversion of 34% of coniferous to broad‐leaved forests (11% vice versa). Coppices practically vanish from Southern Europe, mainly due to their high water requirement. We find the high shares of unmanaged forests necessary to keep European forests a carbon sink while broad‐leaved and unmanaged forests contribute to local cooling through biogeophysical effects. Unmanaged forests also pose the largest benefit for biodiversity habitat. However, the increased shares of unmanaged and broad‐leaved forests lead to reductions in harvests. This raises the question of how to meet increasing wood demands without transferring ecological impacts elsewhere or enhancing the dependence on more carbon‐intensive industries. Furthermore, the mitigation potential of forests depends on assumptions about the decarbonization of other industries and is consequently crucially dependent on the emission scenario. Our findings highlight that trade‐offs must be assessed when developing concrete strategies for climate‐smart forestry.

show abstract

Accounting for forest management in the estimation of forest carbon balance using the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS (v4.0, r9710): implementation and evaluation of simulations for Europe

Cited by 35 publications

References 52 publications

Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: a summary

Climate change in the Baltic Sea region: a summary

Drainage Ditch Cleaning Has No Impact on the Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Balances in a Recent Forest Clear-Cut in Boreal Sweden

Trade‐Offs for Climate‐Smart Forestry in Europe Under Uncertain Future Climate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About