4.7 Article

Climate-induced mortality of Siberian pine and fir in the Lake Baikal Watershed, Siberia

期刊

FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
卷 384, 期 -, 页码 191-199

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.10.050

关键词

Water stress; Conifer mortality; Lake Baikal Region; Drought; Aridity increase; Forest health

类别

资金

  1. Russian Science Fund (RNF) [14-24-00112]
  2. NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program
  3. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation [2.914.2014/K]
  4. Russian Science Foundation [14-24-00112] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Siberian pine (Pinus sibirica) and fir (Abies sibirica) (so called dark needle conifers, DNC) showed decreased radial growth increment within the Lake Baikal watershed since the 1980s with increasing mortality recorded since the year 2000. Tree ring width was strongly correlated with vapor pressure deficit, aridity and root zone moisture. Water stress from droughts made trees more susceptible to insect attacks causing mortality in about 10% of DNC stands within the Lake Baikal watershed. Within Siberia DNC mortality increased in the southern part of the DNC range. Biogeographically, tree mortality was located within the DNC - forest-steppes transition. Tree mortality was significantly correlated with drought and soil moisture anomalies. Within the interior of the DNC range mortality occurred within relief features with high water stress risk (i.e., steep convex south facing slopes with shallow well drained soils). In general, DNC mortality in Siberia was induced by increased aridity and severe drought (inciting factors) in synergy with biotic attacks (contributing factor). In future climate scenarios with predicted increase in aridity DNC could be eliminated from the southern part of its current range and will be replaced by drought-resistant conifers and broadleaf species (e.g., Larix sibirica, Pinus silvestris, and Betula pubescence). (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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