4.5 Article

Climate affects severity and altitudinal distribution of outbreaks in an eruptive bark beetle

期刊

CLIMATIC CHANGE
卷 115, 期 2, 页码 327-341

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0463-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. BACCARA ('Biodiversity And Climate Change, A Risk Analysis') project
  2. European Community [226299]
  3. Italian national project Study of the response mechanisms to climatic change in model forest insects [2010-CPDA104007]
  4. NRI/AFRI [2009-65104-05731]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temperature warming and the increased frequency of climatic anomalies are expected to trigger bark beetle outbreaks with potential severe consequences on forest ecosystems. We characterized the combined effects of climatic factors and density-dependent feedbacks on forest damage caused by Ips typographus (L.), one of the most destructive pests of European spruce forests, and tested whether climate modified the interannual variation in the altitudinal outbreak range of the species. We analyzed a 16-year time-series from the European Alps of timber loss in Picea abies Karsten forests due to I. typographus attacks and used a discrete population model and an information theoretic approach to compare multiple competing hypotheses. The occurrence of dry summers combined with warm temperatures appeared as the main abiotic triggers of severity of outbreaks. We also found an endogenous negative feedback with a 2-year lag suggesting a potential important role of natural enemies. Forest damage per hectare averaged 7-fold higher where spruce was planted in sites warmer than those within its historical climatic range. Dry summers, but not temperature, was related to upward shifts in the altitudinal outbreak range. Considering the potential increased susceptibility of spruce forests to insect outbreaks due to climate change, there is growing value in mitigating these effects through sustainable forest management, which includes avoiding the promotion of spruce outside its historical climatic range.

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

4.5
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