Managing stand density to enhance the adaptability of Scots pine stands to
climate change: a modelling approach
A.Ameztegui, A. Cabon, M. de Cáceres, L. Coll
Introduction | The context
Introduction | The context
Introduction | The context
Introduction | The recipe
Introduction | The recipe
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
➤ Available water apportioned among fewer trees
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
➤ Available water apportioned among fewer trees
Positive effect on:
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
➤ Available water apportioned among fewer trees
Positive effect on:
➤ ↑ tree vigour
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
➤ Available water apportioned among fewer trees
Positive effect on:
➤ ↑ tree vigour
➤ ↑ WUE
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
➤ Available water apportioned among fewer trees
Positive effect on:
➤ ↑ tree vigour
➤ ↑ WUE
➤ ↑resilience to drought events
Introduction | The recipe
➤ ↑ timber quality
➤ ↓ Interception losses (↑ infiltration)
➤ ↓ Stand transpiration
➤ Available water apportioned among fewer trees
Positive effect on:
➤ ↑ tree vigour
➤ ↑ WUE
➤ ↑resilience to drought events
➤ ↑ soil water content
Introduction | The problem
Introduction | The problem
Introduction | The problem
Transient effects
Introduction | The problem
Transient effects Dependent on site,
thinning regime climatic scenario
Introduction | The problem
Difficult long-term experiments Impossible to assess future
climate
Introduction | Our suggestion
SORTIE-ND medfate(swb)
mm
wat
er
2011 2012 2013
020
4060
80
RainfallPET
mm
wat
er
2011 2012 2013
01
23
Total evaporationPlant ETBare soil E
Wat
er c
onte
nt (%
vol
)
2011 2012 2013
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
PredictedMeasurements (6 CS616 probes, 0−30 cm, mean+/−1.96se)
Our objectives
➤ Can we predict the post-thinning dynamics?
Our objectives
➤ Can we predict the post-thinning dynamics?
➤ Effect of several factors
➤ Initial site conditions
➤ Climate scenario
➤ Thinning regime
Our objectives
➤ Can we predict the post-thinning dynamics?
➤ Effect of several factors
➤ Initial site conditions
➤ Climate scenario
➤ Thinning regime
➤ On several variables
➤ Forest production
➤ Water balance (blue water)
➤ Tree drought stress
Our objectives
➤ Can we predict the post-thinning dynamics?
➤ Effect of several factors
➤ Initial site conditions
➤ Climate scenario
➤ Thinning regime
➤ On several variables
➤ Forest production
➤ Water balance (blue water)
➤ Tree drought stress
Our objectives
Trade-offs
Methods | Case study
Pinus sylvestris(Scots pine)
➤ 240,000 ha (17%) ➤ 2/3 monospecific ➤ 160,000 m3 timber (25%)
Methods | Case study
Pinus sylvestris(Scots pine)
Methods | Case study
Pinus sylvestris(Scots pine)
Foto: M. Beltrán
Foto: T. Valor
Foto: S.Martín
Humid SiteTemp 8.7
Precip 828Martonne 44.3
Mesic SiteTemp 12.0
Precip 714.Martonne 32.5
Xeric SiteTemp 12.5Precip 564.Martonne 25.1
Methods | Initial conditions
Pinus sylvestris(Scots pine)
Humid SiteTemp 8.7
Precip 828Martonne 44.3
Mesic SiteTemp 12.0
Precip 714.Martonne 32.5
Xeric SiteTemp 12.5Precip 564.Martonne 25.1
Methods | Initial conditions
Pinus sylvestris(Scots pine)
Methods | Thinning regime
Methods | Thinning regime
Control -10% AB -20% AB -30% AB
-40% AB -50% AB -60% AB -70% AB
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
89
1011
1213
14
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
HumidScenario A2
y = 9.0 + 0.0277 * year ^ 1.125
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
89
1011
1213
14
YearM
ean
Annu
al T
emp.
HumidScenario B2
y = 9.0 + 0.0916 * year ^ 0.728
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
MesicScenario A2
y = 12.0 + 0.0327 * year ^ 1.086
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.MesicScenario B2
y = 12.0 + 0.1015 * year ^ 0.709
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
XericScenario A2
y = 12.5 + 0.0550 * year ^ 0.964
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
XericScenario B2
y = 12.5 + 0.1624 * year ^ 0.611
Methods | Climatic scenarios (temperature)
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
89
1011
1213
14
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
HumidScenario A2
y = 9.0 + 0.0277 * year ^ 1.125
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
89
1011
1213
14
YearM
ean
Annu
al T
emp.
HumidScenario B2
y = 9.0 + 0.0916 * year ^ 0.728
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
MesicScenario A2
y = 12.0 + 0.0327 * year ^ 1.086
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.MesicScenario B2
y = 12.0 + 0.1015 * year ^ 0.709
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
XericScenario A2
y = 12.5 + 0.0550 * year ^ 0.964
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
1112
1314
1516
17
Mea
n An
nual
Tem
p.
XericScenario B2
y = 12.5 + 0.1624 * year ^ 0.611
+ 4.6 ºC (47.8%)
+ 2.7 ºC (26.7%)
+ 4.3 ºC (35.8%)
+ 2.4 ºC (20.0%)
+ 4.2 ºC (33.6%)
+ 2.5 ºC (20.0%)
Methods | Climatic scenarios (temperature)
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
600
700
800
900
1000
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
HumidScenario A2
y = 806.2 − 0.0009 * year ^ 2.63
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
600
700
800
900
1000
YearM
ean
Annu
al P
rec.
HumidScenario B2
y = 806.2 − 0.4773 * year ^ 0.92
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
500
600
700
800
900
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
MesicScenario A2
y = 714.2 − 0.0227 * year ^ 1.91
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
500
600
700
800
900
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
MesicScenario B2
y = 714.2 − 4.286 * year ^ 0.60
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
400
500
600
700
800
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
XericScenario A2
y = 564.3 − 5.1·e−6 * year ^ 3.62
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
400
500
600
700
800
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
XericScenario B2
y = 564.3 − 2.53·e−8 * year ^ 1.0
Methods | Climatic scenarios (precipitation)
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
600
700
800
900
1000
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
HumidScenario A2
y = 806.2 − 0.0009 * year ^ 2.63
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
600
700
800
900
1000
YearM
ean
Annu
al P
rec.
HumidScenario B2
y = 806.2 − 0.4773 * year ^ 0.92
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
500
600
700
800
900
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
MesicScenario A2
y = 714.2 − 0.0227 * year ^ 1.91
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
500
600
700
800
900
Year
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
MesicScenario B2
y = 714.2 − 4.286 * year ^ 0.60
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
400
500
600
700
800
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
XericScenario A2
y = 564.3 − 5.1·e−6 * year ^ 3.62
2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
400
500
600
700
800
Mea
n An
nual
Pre
c.
XericScenario B2
y = 564.3 − 2.53·e−8 * year ^ 1.0
- 142 mm (14.8%)
- 52 mm (3.7%)
- 121 mm (17.0%)
- 63 mm (8.7%)
-64 mm (10.3%)
- 1.0 mm (0.1%)
Methods | Climatic scenarios (precipitation)
Modelling forest dynamics | SORTIE-ND
Modelling forest dynamics | SORTIE-ND
JABOWA (Botkin et al. 1972)
SORTIE Canham et al. (1996)
FORET (Shugar and West, 1977)
SORTIE-ND: spatially-explicit, individually-based model
Lines, 2012
Modelling forest dynamics | SORTIE-ND
Allometry & resources Growth
Mortality Dispersal & recruitment
Climate change
Modelling forest dynamics | SORTIE-ND
Allometry & resources Growth
Mortality Dispersal & recruitment
Climate change
Modelling forest dynamics | SORTIE-ND
Gomez-Aparicio et al. 2011; Glob. Cha. Biol.
Modelling water balance | medfate wbm
VEGETATION
Forest structure from SORTIE-ND
SOIL
Two layers 50 cm depth
Loamy texture 10-15% rock
LAI
Soil water holding capacity
PET
CLIMATE Rainfall
Interception Surface run-off
Soil water content Soil water potential
Transpiration
Evaporation
Whole plantconductance
Modelling water balance | medfate wbm
Rainfall
Intercep.on
Evapora.on
Deepdrainage
Baresoilevapora.on
Planttranspira.on
Percola.on
Soilinfiltra.onRunoff
Methods | Modelling approach
Methods | Modelling approach
Methods | Modelling approach
38
372 ini cond.
(10 rep)
NoCC CCB2 CCA2
20
40
60
20
40
60
20
40
60
PlotAPlotB
PlotC
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100Year
Basa
l Are
a (m
2·ha−1
)
Intensity0010203040506070
TypeLow
Results | Can we predict forest dynamics?
NoCC CCB2 CCA2
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
PlotAPlotB
PlotC
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100Year
Mea
n qu
adra
tic d
iam
eter
(cm
)
Intensity0010203040506070
TypeLow
Results | Can we predict forest dynamics?
Results | Can we predict forest dynamics?
Results | Effects on forest production
Results | Effects on forest growth (duration)
Humid Mesic Xeric
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Blu
e w
ate
r (%
)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
� � � � � � � �
��
��
��
� �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
Str
ess in
dex
A
B
Humid Mesic Xeric
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Blu
e w
ate
r (%
)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
� � � � � � � �
��
��
��
� �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
Str
ess ind
ex
A
B
Results | Effects on water balance (blue water)
Humid Mesic Xeric
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Blu
e w
ate
r (%
)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
� � � � � � � �
��
��
��
� �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
Str
ess index
A
B
Results | Effects on drought stress
Humid Mesic Xeric
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Blu
e w
ate
r (%
)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
� � � � � � � �
��
��
��
� �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
Str
ess in
dex
A
B
Humid Mesic Xeric
�
� �
30
40
50
70 80 90 100 110 70 80 90 100 110 70 80 90 100 110
Blu
e w
ate
r (%
)
Thinning
intensity
� 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
�
�
�
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
70 80 90 100 110 70 80 90 100 110 70 80 90 100 110
Final basal area (%)
Str
ess in
dex
A
B
Results | Trade-offs
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
➤ Simultaneous gain only possible at humid sites or mesic sites (NoCC)
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
➤ Simultaneous gain only possible at humid sites or mesic sites (NoCC)
➤ Thinning interesting to increase resistance to drought in xeric sites
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
➤ Simultaneous gain only possible at humid sites or mesic sites (NoCC)
➤ Thinning interesting to increase resistance to drought in xeric sites
➤ In mesic sites, compromise between production and water management
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
➤ Simultaneous gain only possible at humid sites or mesic sites (NoCC)
➤ Thinning interesting to increase resistance to drought in xeric sites
➤ In mesic sites, compromise between production and water management
➤ Under severe CC, very heavy thinning needed
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
➤ Simultaneous gain only possible at humid sites or mesic sites (NoCC)
➤ Thinning interesting to increase resistance to drought in xeric sites
➤ In mesic sites, compromise between production and water management
➤ Under severe CC, very heavy thinning needed
➤ In some cases, not enough (species substitution?)
Conclusions
➤ Trade-off between production and improvement in water status
➤ Trade-off site and climate-dependent
➤ Simultaneous gain only possible at humid sites or mesic sites (NoCC)
➤ Thinning interesting to increase resistance to drought in xeric sites
➤ In mesic sites, compromise between production and water management
➤ Under severe CC, very heavy thinning needed
➤ In some cases, not enough (species substitution?)
➤ No general recipes
Conclusions
Results | Duration of the effects on blue water
Humid Mesic Xeric
�
�
�
� � �
� �
�
�
� ��
�
��
�
��
� ��
�
�
0
20
40
60
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
T5
0,B
W (
ye
ars
)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
�
�
��
�
� �
�
��
�
� �
�
��
�
�
0
25
50
75
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
T5
0,s
tre
ss (
ye
ars
)
A
B
Humid Mesic Xeric
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60B
lue
wa
ter
(%)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
� � � � � � � �
��
��
��
� �
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
Str
ess in
dex
A
B
Results | Duration of the effects on drought stress
Humid Mesic Xeric
�
�
�
� � �
� �
�
�
� ��
�
��
�
��
� ��
�
�
0
20
40
60
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
T5
0,B
W (
years
)
Climate
� NoCC
CCB2
CCA2
Humid Mesic Xeric
�
�
��
�
� �
�
��
�
� �
�
��
�
�
0
25
50
75
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Thinning intensity (%)
T5
0,s
tre
ss (
years
)
A
B