4.7 Article

The influence of climate and management on survival probability for Germany's most important tree species

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 458, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117652

关键词

Tree mortality; Climate change; Survival analysis; Accelerated failure time models

类别

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Germany (Waldklimafonds Project SURVIVAL-KW) [FKZ: 28WC4088]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to climate change for many regions an increase in tree mortality is expected. Considering changes in mortality risk is important for management decisions. Therefore, models are needed that predict mortality risk under future climate. We fitted survival models for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L) Karst.), Scots pine (Pirtus sylvestris L.), Silver Fir (Abies alba Mill.), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.), and pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) based on the German crown condition survey as well as pan-European crown condition data from Level I and Level II plots, thus encompassing large environmental gradients. We used parametric accelerated failure time models assuming Weibull- or log-normal distribution of survival times. The models allow to estimate survival probability in dependence on age, climate and species mixture. For all species, a decrease in survival probability with increasing temperatures was found. Decreasing precipitation increased mortality risk for Norway spruce, Scots pine and Douglas fir. In addition, for Norway spruce and Douglas fir a positive effect of species admixture on survival was found. In summary, we could fit parsimonious parametric survival models explaining differences in survival times by 30-year climate averages that we interpret as predisposing factors that increase a tree's vulnerability. However, uncertainty in estimations remains high due to limitations of the sampling design and the methodology.

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

4.7
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