Comparing the Performance of Forest gap Models in North America |
| |
| Authors: | Harald K M Bugmann Stan D Wullschleger David T Price Kiona Ogle Donald F Clark and Allen M Solomon |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Mountain Forest Ecology, Department of Forest Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland;(2) Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6422, USA;(3) Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, 5320 – 122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6H 3S5, Canada;(4) Department of Botany, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham, NC 27708, USA;(5) Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400123, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4123, USA;(6) Western Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Forest gap models have a long history in the study of forest dynamics, including predicting long-term succession patterns and assessing the potential impacts of climate change and air pollution on forest structure and composition. In most applications, existing models are adapted for the specific question at hand and little effort is devoted to evaluating alternative formulations for key processes, although this has the potential to significantly influence model behavior. In the present study, we explore the implications of alternative formulations for selected ecological processes via the comparison of several gap models. Baseline predictions of forest biomass, composition and size structure generated by several gap models are compared to each other and to measured data at boreal and temperate sites in North America. The models ForClim and LINKAGES v2.0 were compared based on simulations of a temperate forest site in Tennessee, whereas FORSKA-2V, BOREALIS and ForClim were compared at four boreal forest sites in central and eastern Canada. Results for present-day conditions were evaluated on their success in predicting forest cover, species composition, total biomass and stand density, and allocation of biomass among species. In addition, the sensitivity of each model to climatic changes was investigated using a suite of six climate change scenarios involving temperature and precipitation. In the temperate forest simulations, both ForClim and LINKAGES v2.0 predicted mixed mesophytic forests dominated by oak species, which is expected for this region of Tennessee. The models differed in their predictions of species composition as well as with respect to the simulated rates of succession. Simulated forest dynamics under the changed climates were qualitatively similar between the two models, although aboveground biomass and species composition in ForClim was more sensitive to drought than in LINKAGES v2.0. Under a warmer climate, the modeled effects of temperature on tree growth in LINKAGES v2.0 led to the unrealistic loss of several key species. In the boreal forest simulations, ForClim predicted significant forest growth at only the most mesic site, and failed to predict a realistic species composition. In contrast, FORSKA-2V and BOREALIS were successful in simulating forest cover, general species composition, and biomass at most sites. In the climate change scenarios, ForClim was highly sensitive, whereas the other two models exhibited sensitivity only at the drier central Canadian sites. Although the studied sites differ strongly with respect to both the climatic regime and the set of dominating species, a unifying feature emerged from these simulation exercises. The major differences in model behavior were brought about by differences in the internal representations of the seasonal water balance, and they point to an important limitation in some gap model formulations for assessing climate change impacts. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
