English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

General Context:  Climate change can positively or negatively affect abiotic and biotic drivers of tree mortality. Process-based models integrating these climatic effects are only seldom used at species distribution scale.   Objective:  The main objective of this study was to investigate the multi-causal mortality risk of five major European forest tree species across their distribution range from an ecophysiological perspective, to quantify the impact of forest management practices on this risk and to identify threats on the genetic conservation network.   Methods:  We used the process-based ecophysiological model CASTANEA to simulate the mortality risk of  Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea, Pinus sylvestris, Pinus pinaster , and  Picea abies  under current and future climate conditions, while considering local silviculture practices. The mortality risk was assessed by a composite risk index  (CRIM)  integrating the risks of carbon starvation, hydraulic failure and frost damage. We took into account extreme climatic events with the  CRIM   max  , computed as the maximum annual value of the  CRIM .   Results:  The physiological processes' contributions to  CRIM  differed among species: it was mainly driven by hydraulic failure for  P. sylvestris  and  Q. petraea , by frost damage for  P. abies , by carbon starvation for  P. pinaster , and by a combination of hydraulic failure and frost damage for  F. sylvatica . Under future climate, projections showed an increase of  CRIM  for  P. pinaster  but a decrease for  P. abies, Q. petraea , and  F. sylvatica , and little variation for  P. sylvestris . Under the harshest future climatic scenario, forest management decreased the mean  CRIM  of  P. sylvestris , increased it for  P. abies  and  P. pinaster  and had no major impact for the two broadleaved species. By the year 2100, 38–90% of the European network of gene conservation units are at extinction risk ( CRIM   max  =1), depending on the species.   Conclusions:  Using a process-based ecophysiological model allowed us to disentangle the multiple drivers of tree mortality under current and future climates. Taking into account the positive effect of increased CO 2  on fertilization and water use efficiency, average mortality risk may increase or decrease in the future depending on species and sites. However, under extreme climatic events, our process-based projections are as pessimistic as those obtained using bioclimatic niche models.

Tree Mortality Risks Under Climate Change in Europe: Assessment of Silviculture Practices and Genetic Conservation Networks