Future forest aboveground carbon dynamics in the central United States: The importance of forest demographic processes

Scientific Reports

Volumn 7, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Jin, Wenchi ^a   He, Hong S ^a   Thompson, Frank R ^b   Wang, Wen J ^a   Fraser, Jacob S ^a   Shifley, Stephen R ^b   Hanberry, Brice B ^a   Dijak, William D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON;

CARBON CYCLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; FOREST; REPRODUCIBILITY; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

CARBON; CARBON CYCLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEMOGRAPHY; ECOSYSTEM; FORESTS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85011878986     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep41821     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Reich, R. & Frelich, L. In Encyclopaedia of global environmental change 565-569 (Wiley, Chichester, 2003).
2. Thompson, J. R., Carpenter, D. N., Cogbill, C. V. & Foster, D. R. Four centuries of change in northeastern United States forests. PLoS ONE 8, e72540 (2013).
3. Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science 333, 988-993 (2011).
4. Pan, Y. et al. Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests. Biogeosciences 8, 715-732 (2011).
5. Williams, M. Americans and their forests: A historical geography. (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
6. Benac, D. & Flader, S. History of Missouri Forests in the Era of Exploitation and Conservation. 36-41 (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, 2004).
7. Shifley, S. R. & Moser, W. K. Future forests of the northern United States 388 (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, 2016).
8. Brandt, L. et al. Central Hardwoods ecosystem vulnerability assessment and synthesis: A report from the Central Hardwoods Climate Change Response Framework project 254 (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, 2014).
9. Fahey, T. et al. The biogeochemistry of carbon at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry 75, 109-176 (2005).
10. Bormann, F. H. & Likens, G. E. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem 253 (Springer-Verlag, 1979).
11. Keeton, W. S., Whitman, A. A., McGee, G. C. & Goodale, C. L. Late-successional biomass development in northern hardwoodconifer forests of the northeastern United States. Forest Science 57, 489-505 (2011).
12. Ziegler, S. S. A comparison of structural characteristics between old-growth and postfire second-growth hemlock-hardwood forests in Adirondack Park, New York, USA Global Ecology and Biogeography 9, 373-389 (2000).
13. Luyssaert, S. et al. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215 (2008).
14. Foster, J. R., D'Amato, A. W. & Bradford, J. B. Looking for age-related growth decline in natural forests: unexpected biomass patterns from tree rings and simulated mortality. Oecologia 175, 363-374 (2014).
15. Xu, C. Y. et al. Age-related decline of stand biomass accumulation is primarily due to mortality and not to reduction in NPP associated with individual tree physiology, tree growth or stand structure in a Quercus-dominated forest. Journal of Ecology 100, 428-440 (2012).
16. Moorcroft, P. R., Hurtt, G. C. & Pacala, S. W. A method for scaling vegetation dynamics: The Ecosystem Demography Model (ED). Ecological Monographs 71, 557-585 (2001).
17. Wang, W. J. et al. LANDIS PRO: A landscape model that predicts forest composition and structure changes at regional scales. Ecography 37, 225-229; doi: 10. 1111/j. 1600-0587. 2013. 00495. x (2014).
18. Fraser, J. S., He, H. S., Shifley, S. R., Wang, W. J. & Thompson, F. R. Simulating stand-level harvest prescriptions across landscapes: LANDIS PRO harvest module design. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 43, 972-978 (2013).
19. Wullschleger, S., Gunderson, C., Tharp, M. L., West, D. & Post, W. In North American Temperate Deciduous Forest Responses to Changing Precipitation Regimes Vol. 166 Ecological Studies (ed. Hanson, P. & Wullschleger, S.) Ch. 25, 433-446 (Springer New York, 2003).
20. Cheaib, A. et al. Climate change impacts on tree ranges: model intercomparison facilitates understanding and quantification of uncertainty. Ecology Letters 15, 533-544 (2012).
21. Pereira, H. M. et al. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330, 1496-1501 (2010).
22. Keenan, T., Maria Serra, J., Lloret, F., Ninyerola, M. & Sabate, S. Predicting the future of forests in the Mediterranean under climate change, with niche-and process-based models: CO2 matters! Global Change Biology 17, 565-579 (2011).
23. Morin, X. & Thuiller, W. Comparing niche-and process-based models to reduce prediction uncertainty in species range shifts under climate change. Ecology 90, 1301-1313 (2009).
24. Hadden, D. & Grelle, A. Changing temperature response of respiration turns boreal forest from carbon sink into carbon source. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 223, 30-38 (2016).
25. Kurz, W. A. et al. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452, 987-990 (2008).
26. McNab, W. H. et al. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States 80 (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, 2007).
27. O'Connell, B. M. et al. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database description and users manual version 5. 1. 6 for Phase 2 (USDA Forest Service, 2013).
28. USDA. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database description and users manual version 5. 1 for Phase 2 (USDA Forest Service, 2011).
29. Wang, W. J. et al. A framework for evaluating forest landscape model predictions using empirical data and knowledge. Environmental Modelling & Software 62, 230-239; doi: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. envsoft. 2014. 09. 003 (2014).
30. Jin, W., He, H. S. & Thompson III, F. R. Are more complex physiological models of forest ecosystems better choices for plot and regional predictionsEnvironmental Modelling & Software 75, 1-14 (2016).
31. Thompson, J. R., Foster, D. R., Scheller, R. & Kittredge, D. The influence of land use and climate change on forest biomass and composition in Massachusetts, USA. Ecological Applications 21, 2425-2444 (2011).
32. Odum, E. P. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164, 262-270 (1969).
33. Whittaker, R. H. & Marks, P. L. In Primary productivity of the Biosphere (ed. Leith, H. & Whittaker, R.) 55-118 (Springer-Verlag, 1975).
34. Jenkins, J. C., Birdsey, R. A. & Pan, Y. Biomass and NPP Estimation for the Mid-Atlantic Region (USA) Using Plot-Level Forest Inventory Data. Ecological Applications 11, 1174-1193 (2001).
35. Hurtt, G. C. et al. Projecting the future of the U. S. carbon sink. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 1389-1394 (2002).
36. Horn, H. S. The ecology of secondary succession. Annual review of ecology and systematics 25-37 (1974).
37. Oliver, C. D. & Larson, B. C. Forest Stand Dynamics. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996).
38. Sano, J. Age and size distribution in a long-term forest dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management 92, 39-44 (1997).
39. Hett, J. M. & Loucks, O. L. Age structure models of balsam fir and eastern hemlock. Journal of Ecology 64, 1029-1044 (1976).
40. Medvigy, D., Wofsy, S. C., Munger, J. W., Hollinger, D. Y. & Moorcroft, P. R. Mechanistic scaling of ecosystem function and dynamics in space and time: Ecosystem Demography model version 2. J. Geophys. Res. 114, G01002 (2009).
41. Zhou, G. et al. Old-growth forests can accumulate carbon in soils. Science 314, 1417; doi: 10. 1126/science. 1130168 (2006).
42. Gaudinski, J. B., Trumbore, S. E., Davidson, E. A. & Zheng, S. Soil carbon cycling in a temperate forest: radiocarbon-based estimates of residence times, sequestration rates and partitioning of fluxes. Biogeochemistry 51, 33-69; doi: 10. 1023/a:1006301010014 (2000).
43. Wang, W. J. et al. Importance of succession, harvest, and climate change in determining future composition in U. S. Central Hardwood Forests. Ecosphere 6, 1-18, doi: 10. 1890/es15-00238. 1 (2015).
44. Girardin, M. P. & Mudelsee, M. Past and future changes in Canadian boreal wildfire activity. Ecological Applications 18, 391-406 (2008).
45. Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G. & Rampley, G. Could increased boreal forest ecosystem productivity offset carbon losses from increased disturbancesPhil. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 363, 2261-2269 (2008).
46. Gustafson, E. J., Shvidenko, A. Z., Sturtevant, B. R. & Scheller, R. M. Predicting global change effects on forest biomass and composition in south-central Siberia. Ecological Applications 20, 700-715 (2010).
47. Li, X., He, H. S., Wu, Z., Liang, Y. & Schneiderman, J. E. Comparing effects of climate warming, fire, and timber harvesting on a boreal forest landscape in northeastern China. PLoS ONE 8, e59747 (2013).
48. Loudermilk, E. L. et al. Carbon dynamics in the future forest: The importance of long-term successional legacy and climate-fire interactions. Global Change Biology 19, 3502-3515 (2013).
49. Wang, W. J., He, H. S., Thompson, F. R., III, Fraser, J. S. & Dijak, W. D. Landscape-and regional-scale shifts in forest composition under climate change in the Central Hardwood Region of the United States. Landscape Ecology 1-15 (2015).