4.8 Article

A drought-induced pervasive increase in tree mortality across Canada's boreal forests

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 1, 期 9, 页码 467-471

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1293

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Strategic Network (ForValuenet)
  2. NSERC
  3. China QianRen programme
  4. Forest Management Branch of Alberta Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development, Saskatchewan Renewable Resources Forestry Branch
  5. Forestry Branch of Manitoba, Ontario
  6. Ministere des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune du Quebec
  7. Northwest A&F University, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drought-induced tree mortality is expected to increase worldwide under projected future climate changes(1-4). The Canadian boreal forests, which occupy about 30% of the boreal forests worldwide and 77% of Canada's total forested land, play a critical role in the albedo of Earth's surface(5) and in its global carbon budget(6). Many of the previously reported regional-scale impacts of drought on tree mortality have affected low-and middle-latitude tropical regions(2) and the temperate forests of the western United States(3), but no study has examined high-latitude boreal regions with multiple species at a regional scale using long-term forest permanent sampling plots(7-9). Here, we estimated tree mortality in natural stands throughout Canada's boreal forests using data from the permanent sampling plots and statistical models. We found that tree mortality rates increased by an overall average of 4 : 7% yr(-1) from 1963 to 2008, with higher mortality rate increases in western regions than in eastern regions (about 4.9 and 1 : 9% yr(-1), respectively). The water stress created by regional drought may be the dominant contributor to these widespread increases in tree mortality rates across tree species, sizes, elevations, longitudes and latitudes. Western Canada seems to have been more sensitive to drought than eastern Canada.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据