REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
Ecosystems and Forests
Authors Britta Tietjen, Wolfgang Cramer
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Hannes Böttcher, Michael Obersteiner
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Alistair Hunt
Metroeconomica (Metro)
Paul Watkiss
Paul Watkiss Associates (PWA)
Grant Agreement:
Project acronym:
Project title:
Research area:
212774
ClimateCost
Full Costs of Climate Change
ENV.2007.1.1.6.1.
Deliverable Number: 2F1
Actual submission date: 1.7.2009
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Title:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Ecosystems and Forests
Purpose:
Assessment of the economic damages, with and without
adaptation, from climate change on ecosystems in physical
impacts and monetary values, for the scenarios from WP1 for
Europe, China, India and the USA
Filename:
Deliverable 2_1F vs 1.doc
Date:
July 2009
Authors:
Britta Tietjen, Wolfgang Cramer
Hannes Böttcher, Michael Obersteiner
Alistair Hunt
Paul Watkiss
Document history:
Status:
Project Coordinator: Thomas E Downing
Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford
266 Banbury Road, Suite 193
Oxford OX2 7DL, U.K.
Tel: +44 1865 426316; Fax: +44 1865 421898
Mobile: +44 7968 065957
tomdowning.sei@gmail.com,
www.sei.se/oxford
Technical Coordinator: Paul Watkiss
Paul Watkiss Associates
Paul_watkiss@btinternet.com
Tel +44 797 1049682
http://www.climatecost.cc/
Table of Contents
Review of literature............................................................................................................. 1
Role of ecosystems for the human welfare ..................................................................... 1
Provision and stability of ecosystem services ................................................................. 2
Effects of climate change on ecosystems ........................................................................ 4
Effects of climate change on biodiversity ....................................................................... 7
Effects of climate change on ecosystem services ........................................................... 8
Monetary valuation of Biodiversity and Ecosystems ..................................................... 9
Impacts of climate change on forests and forestry........................................................ 10
Possible research strategy for ClimateCost................................................................... 12
Input data from other work packages............................................................................ 13
Potential input to the IAM and CGM tasks .................................................................. 14
References ..................................................................................................................... 15
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Review of literature
The aim of this task is to assess the impacts of climate change on ecosystems,
biodiversity, and forestry in Europe, China, India, and the USA. Ecosystems are a
dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism community (biotic factors) and
the nonliving environment (abiotic factors) interacting as a functional unit (Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a). Assessing their changes under climate change therefore
requires taking these complex interactions into account. For example, changes in abiotic
components such as water availability impact the biotic factors of a system, which in turn
feedbacks on the water cycle. To assess the impacts of climate change on ecosystems,
physical impacts can be measured (e.g. primary production, carbon storage, ecosystem
composition, runoff), and the resulting monetary values can be determined. Often,
monetary values of ecosystems are not evaluated directly, but indirectly via the services
that ecosystems provide to humans. This report first gives an introduction into ecosystem
services, analyses how these services are provided, and names afterwards potential
impacts of climate change on ecosystems and ecosystem services. The most recent
knowledge of climate change impacts on forest ecosystems is reviewed and the current
situation that can affect the forestry sector in the proposed region is addressed. Here, a
special focus is put on the impacts of climate change on forestry.
Role of ecosystems for the human welfare
Ecosystems directly and indirectly provide various goods and services to humans; these
range from regulating services such as climate regulation to food and fresh water
provision and recreative values. Measuring these services in economic values is a
challenge, since ecosystem services are not fully covered in economic markets (Balmford
et al. 2002). Therefore, concepts have been developed to assess the willingness of a
society to pay for a service or to accept to forego a service (Farber et al. 2002).
A first thorough attempt to assess the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital was performed by Costanza et al. (1997). Based on more than 100 attempts of
previous studies on single ecosystems or services, they estimated a minimum value of
renewable ecosystem services for global biomes. Their estimation includes 17 broad
goods and services, covering regulating services, supporting services, provisioning
services and cultural services (Table 1). Summarising the contribution of each biome to
these services leads to a total value of US$ 33 trillion per year (accounting for
uncertainties leads to a range of US$ 16-54 trillion per year).
A follow up study by Balmford et al. (2002) assessed the marginal value of goods and
services delivered by a biome when relatively intact and when converted to typical forms
of human use. Their clear message is the high net present value of intact ecosystems, and
they conclude that the overall benefit:cost ratio of an effective global program for the
conservation of remaining wild nature is at least 100:1.
Table 1: Ecosystem good and services and their values included in the economic assessment of Costanza et
al. (1997). Goods and services are classified according to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA
2005c).
1
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Ecosystem Goods
and Services
Regulating Services
Example
1Gas regulation
2Climate regulation
3Disturbance regulation
4Water regulation
5Erosion control
6Pollination
7Biological control
Supporting Services
8Soil formation
9Nutrient cycling
10Waste treatment
11Refugia
Provisioning Services
12Water supply
13Food production
14Raw materials
15Genetic resources
Cultural Services
16Recreation
17Other cultural services
CO2/O2 balance
Greenhouse gas regulation,
Storm protection, flood control
Water for agriculture
Prevention of soil losses by wind or water
Pollinators for the reproduction of plant populations
Reduction of herbivory
Accumulation of organic material
Nitrogen fixation
Detoxification
Habitat for migratory species
Global Value
(109 $ yr-1)
1,341
684
1,779
1,115
576
117
417
53
17,075
2,277
124
Provision of water
Production of fish, game, crops
Production of lumber and fuel
Medicinal plants, genes for resistance to plant pathogens
1,692
1,386
721
79
Outdoor recreational activities
Aesthetic or spiritual values
815
3,015
Certainly, these values have to be treated with care, since numerous sources of errors can
arise as a result of the great uncertainties in the detection of services, and their valuation
methodology. Also, the study of Costanza et al. (1997) neglected the evaluation of
services with uncertain value, and therefore provides only a minimal assessment.
Additionally, services undergo tremendous changes in time and space and can feedback
on each other. Nevertheless, these highly cited studies show that ecosystem services
provide an important total contribution to human welfare, and that it is of utter
importance to understand the future development of ecosystems.
Provision and stability of ecosystem services
Having in mind the great value of ecosystem services, the question arises how these
services are provided and how stable they are. Naturally, various factors influence the
provision of services, for example the area of ecosystems, their species composition, and
external factors such as climate and other abiotic conditions. However, a general theory
on the linkage of these factors to ecosystem services is still missing. In the following, we
will briefly describe the role of some key factors for ecosystem services.
Spatial structure of ecosystems
The spatial structure of ecosystems can strongly determine, whether and in which
quantity ecosystem services are provided, and how stable they are. For example, a
2
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
minimal spatial extent of a watershed must be maintained as forests to provide clear
water (Kremen and Ostfeld 2005). Also, the spatial distribution of fragmented ecosystems
is important for services such as pollination or pest control (Kremen et al. 2004). Altering
adjacent ecosystems to agricultural land can for example strongly impact pollination
services, as a study on coffee yields dependent on the surrounding forest structure
showed (Ricketts et al. 2004). Here, surrounding native tropical forests lead to a more
abundant pollinator community, increasing the quantity and quality of the harvested
coffee.
In Europe, especially field margins and hedges are discussed as landscape elements that
interact with agriculture. Hedgerows and field margins provide the fundamental habitat to
various crop pollinators, pest predators, and bird species (Hinsley and Bellamy 2000,
Marshall and Moonen 2002). Additionally, species richness of farmlands is greatly
enhanced by small sown margin stripes (Marshall et al. 2006).
Biodiversity
Biodiversity is defined as the diversity among living organisms in terrestrial, marine, and
other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part (MA
2005b). It includes diversity at different levels, ranging from genes and populations over
species to communities and ecosystems. Although it is clear that biodiversity is linked to
ecosystem stability and ecosystem services, generalising these linkages and quantifying
them is not a trivial mission. For example, it has been found that species composition is
often more important for ecosystem processes than the number of species (Díaz and
Cabido 2001). Also, artificially increasing the species richness in naturally species-poor
areas does not necessarily result into an improvement of ecosystem services (MA 2005b).
In general, biodiversity seems to enhance the resistance and resilience of desirable
ecosystem states (Elmqvist et al. 2003), i.e. the capacity of an ecosystem to remain in the
same state, and the recovery rate of ecosystems after perturbations. Here, one important
factor can be whether keystone process species can be substituted by others, in case of
their local extinction (Folke et al. 1996).
A comprehensive summary on which of the above given components of biodiversity
relates to which ecosystem goods and services provided in Table 1 can be found in the
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005c).
Climatic Conditions/Biome
Different climate conditions on earth have led to various biomes. A biome consists of
ecologically similar climatic conditions, and represents broad habitat and vegetation types
(MA 2005a). Naturally, these biomes not only differ in their primary production (e.g. low
productivity in tundras vs. high productivity in tropical rainforests), but also provide
different ecosystem services. For example, water regulation functions of forests differ
greatly from those of grasslands, and grasslands provide other sources of food than
forests. Following the assessment of Costanza et al. (1997), Table 2 provides an overview
on the so far known contribution of different biomes to the four classes of services
discussed above. It especially shows that little is known about various biomes, such as
deserts or the tundra.
3
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Effects of climate change on ecosystems
The projected climate change will act as an important driving force on natural ecosystems
(Parmesan and Yohe 2003), and will therefore also alter their services. Various studies
show a change in the phenology of species, i.e. the timing of seasonal activities of
animals and plants, as a result of changing climate conditions (see reviews in Walther et
al. 2002, and Parmesan 2006). For example, some bird species have been found to breed
earlier due to recent climate change (Crick and Sparks 1999, Both et al. 2004) and plants
shoot and flower earlier in spring (Fitter and Fitter 2002). These changes can be
problematic, since changes are not synchronised among species. For example, the arrival
of some long-distance migrant birds is determined by endogenous factors and therefore
independent on climate conditions on their breeding grounds. If due to climate change
spring activities occur earlier at these breeding grounds, this leads de facto to a delayed
arrival of the migrant birds (Both and Visser 2001), and therefore to altered food
availability and other conditions. Also, interacting predator-prey species can respond
asynchronously to changes in the climatic conditions, leading to disturbances of natural
cycles (Visser and Both 2005).
Table 2: Known values of ecosystem goods and services according to Costanza et al. (1997). Goods and
services are classified according to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005c). Blank spaces
indicate that the value is unknown. The given values provide only a minimal assessment, since not all
services are fully captured in the study.
In addition to the phenomenological response of various species, a shift in the range and
distribution of species has been observed during recent climate change. This is caused by
species-specific physiological thresholds leading to specific “climate envelopes” in which
a species can occur. The general warming trend leads to a shift of species towards the
poles (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006). Migratory species can respond relatively quickly,
e.g. by altering the destination of migration. However, resident populations respond much
Biome
Open ocean
M
ari
ne
Te
rre
stri
al
Costal
Estuaries
Seagrass/ algae beds
Coral reefs
Shelf
Forest
Tropical
Temperate/ boreal
Grass/ rangelands
Wetlands
Tidal marsh/ mangroves
Swamps/ floodplains
Lakes/ rivers
Deserts
Tundra
4
Value per ha in 1994 ($ ha-1 yr-1)
Area
Regulating
Supporting
Provisioning
Cultural
(106 ha)
Services
Services
Services
Services
33200
43
118
15
76
180
200
62
2660
645
0
2755
39
21231
19002
65
1431
546
2
247
70
410
0
3009
70
1900
2955
3898
479
92
87
1019
97
88
396
75
67
114
38
2
165
165
200
1925
1839
7535
5445
6865
2098
655
628
7696
2158
658
2252
230
743
Ice/ rock
1640
Cropland
1400
Urban
332
38
54
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
slower. Here, a shift does not occur by the movement of individuals, but by changing
extinction and colonisation rates at the northern and southern boundaries of the range: the
extinction at unsuitable habitats increases, while new suitable habitats at the poleward
end of the range can be colonised (Parmesan et al. 1999).
Various evidences across ecosystems have been found for this poleward shift caused by
recent climate change. This includes plant species (e.g. replacement of cold-temperate
ecosystems by Mediterranean ecosystems: Peñuelas and Boada 2003; northward shift of a
species with a northern margin related to the 0 °C-isocline: Walther et al. 2005) as well as
animal species (e.g. intertidal community shift in the range category of species – decline
of northern and increase in southern species: Barry et al. 1995; northward shift in the
range of birds: Thomas and Lennon 1999; poleward shifts in butterfly species: Parmesan
et al. 1999; northward range shift of British dragonflies and damselflies: Hickling et al.
2005). Shifts in species’ ranges have also been observed towards higher altitudes with
lower temperatures (e.g. mountain plants in the Alps: Grabherr et al. 1994; upward shift
of tree limits: Kullman 2001). But also changes in the water availability can lead to rapid
shifts in ecosystems (e.g. drought-induced shift from forests to woodlands: Allen and
Breshears 1998).
Species that are not able (i) to locally adapt to changes by altering their phenology or (ii)
to migrate fast enough to other locations, face a high risk of extinction (Thomas et al.
2004). This risk is especially high for endemic species that cannot recruit from other,
surrounding locations. The extinction risk of species is additionally increased by invading
species establishing in new, suitable habitats, and suppressing and replacing local plant
populations (Dukes and Mooney 1999).
The observed changes in species’ phenomenology and ranges will likely continue in the
next decades. Various statistical modelling studies have dealt especially with species’
range shifts under climate change by linking climate variables with species occurrences
(e.g. Thuiller 2003, Araujo et al. 2005, see also recent review in Austin 2007). However,
predicting species distribution by climate envelopes can be misleading, since interactions
with other species and source-sinks dynamics between different patches can have strong
impacts on the actual distribution of species (Davis et al. 1998). Additionally, when the
rate of climate change exceeds the migration speed of dispersal limited species, new
suitable habitats cannot necessarily be colonized fast enough to prevent extinction. This
has only been accounted for by few studies (e.g. range shifts in Cape Proteaceae: Midgley
et al. 2006), instead, mostly the two contrasting extreme assumptions ‘null’ migration (no
colonisation of new habitats) and ‘full’ migration (unlimited dispersal) have been
analysed.
Table 3: Examples of possible effects of future climate change on ecosystems.
Ecosystem
Climate change
Potential Effects
Source
Invasion by coniferous trees
Landhäusser and Wein
(1993), Johnstone and
Chapin (2003)
1. Terrestrial Ecosystems
Arctic Zone
Tundra
Increased temperature
5
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Taiga (Boreal
Increased temperature
coniferous forest) Increased temperature
and droughts
Increased temperature
and droughts
Increased temperature
Review of literature
Northward migration of tundra
Callaghan et al. (2005)
into current polar desert
Shift of tree lines towards poles Walther et al. (2005)
Increased insect outbreaks
Logan et al. (2003)
Intensified fire regimes
Flannigan et al. (2000)
Changes in the phenology,
Kramer et al. (2000)
Changes in the phenology,
Kramer et al. (2000),
Badeck et al. (2004)
Shift in species composition
Badeck et al. (2001)
Shifts in carbon sequestration,
dependent on water limitation,
fire regime, summer droughts
Change in fire frequency and
intensity
Angert et al. (2005),
Boisvenue and Running
(2006)
IPCC WG2 (2007)
Shift of tree lines to higher
altitude
Forest dieback
Kullman (2001)
Changes in phenology
Dunne et al. (2003)
Temperate Zone
deciduous forest / Increased temperature
mixed forests
Altered mean annual
precipitation
Combined changes
Steppe / Pampa
Increased temperature
Alpine Zone
Subalpine
coniferous forest
Increased temperature
Increased temperature
and droughts
Alpine ecosystems Earlier snow melting
Lack of snow cover
Bugmann et al. (2005)
Exposition of plants and animals Keller et al. (2005)
to frost
Mediterranean Zone
Macchia /Garrigue Combined climatic
changes and CO2
increase
Temperature increase
Decreased precipitation
Increased CO2
Altered precipitation
patterns
Change in fire frequency and
intensity
Pausas and Abdel
Malak (2004)
Expansion to the North
Peñuelas and Boada
(2003)
Desert and grassland expansion, Hayhoe et al. (2004)
mixed deciduous forest
expansion
Reduction in ecosystem carbon Reichstein et al. (2002)
and water flux
Delayed flowering and reduced Llorens and Penuelas
flower production
(2005)
Minor impact due to reduced
IPCC WG2 (2007)
precipitation
Change in phenology
Kramer et al. (2000)
Tropical Zone
Deserts /
savannas /
dry forests / moist
forests
Increased temperature
and decreased
precipitation
Combined changes
Decreased productivity
Woodward and Lomas
(2004)
Change in fire regime
Bond et al.(2003)
Increased CO2 level
Species shift
Ainsworth and Long
(2005)
Sea level rise
Losses in wetlands
van der Wal and Pye
(2004)
All Zones
Bogs, marshes
6
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Replacement of grassy marshes Ross et al. (2000)
by mangroves
Decreases in salt marsh area
Hartig et al. (2002)
2. Aquatic Ecosystems
Limnic systems (rivers, lakes)
Increased temperature,
longer growing season
Increased algal abundance and Schindler et al. (1990),
productivity
Karst-Riddoch et al.
(2005)
Enhanced fish recruitment in
oligotrophic lakes
Stronger stratification leading to
lower nutrient input
Changes in community
composition
Earlier spring algae bloom
Earlier fish migration
Marine systems
Nyberg et al. (2001)
IPCC WG2 (2007)
Adrian et al. (1995),
Hickling et al. (2006)
Gerten and Adrian
(2000)
Lawson et al. (2004)
Differences in phenological
Winder and Schindler
responses among species affect (2004)
food-web interactions
The impact of climate change on costal zones is covered in WP 2A
Until recently, these analyses neglected the impact of a rising atmospheric CO2-level on
plant community composition and species distribution (but see a first attempt for
European tree species by Rickebusch et al. 2008). Free air CO2 enrichment experiments
(FACE) show strong increases of dry matter production for various vegetation types
(Ainsworth and Long 2005). This is on the one hand caused by higher photosynthetic
rates of plants, and on the other hand by enhanced water use efficiency (Drake et al.
1997, Bazzaz 2001). However, since elevated CO2 impacts vegetation types differently,
the resulting changes in vegetation composition can be highly complex.
The combined impacts of climate and increases in the atmospheric CO2 level can be
addressed by Digital Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs). These are process-based
models simulating explicit phenomenological responses of species grouped into plant
functional types to changes in water availability, temperature and increases in the
atmospheric CO2 level and resulting range shifts (e.g. LPJ/LPJmL: Sitch et al. 2003,
Bondeau et al. 2007). Although DGVMs cannot account for range shifts of individual
species, they can show important trends in ecosystem composition, and especially the
interactions between different vegetation types. They therefore allow for some generic
conclusions at the ecosystem level.
Effects of climate change on biodiversity
Altered geographic patterns of species distributions are directly related to local species
richness. The above given examples of polewards shifts and shifts to higher altitudes
combined with different dispersal abilities indicate that community composition of
ecosystems will change. In a combined multipredictor model with various climate
variables as explaining factors, Kreft and Jetz (2007) assessed global patterns and
7
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
determinants of vascular plant diversity. Especially in areas with a high evaporative
demand, the number of wet days strongly determines species richness. That is, if
precipitation becomes temporally more variable as it is predicted by the IPCC (IPCC
WG1 2007), this could lead to a strong decrease in species richness in dry lands.
Bakkenes et al. (2002) found in a simulation study that in average about one third of the
European higher plant species disappeared until 2050 from locations, where they had
been in 1990. This fraction was especially high on the Iberian Peninsula and Eastern
Europe. The methodology of relating species richness solely to climate and habitat areas
has been criticised, since they neglect additional limitations concerning soils or nutrient
availability (Ibañez et al. 2006).
Effects of climate change on ecosystem services
Clearly, changes in ecosystems will reflect in the ecosystem services that they provide.
The provision is not only dependent on the presence or absence of specific ecosystems,
but also on their size, on the abundance of species belonging to ecosystems, and on the
interplay of the whole community. The ATEAM project (Schröter et al. 2004) in the 5 th
Framework Programme of the European Commission analysed the vulnerability of the
human sector in Europe relying on ecosystem services with respect to global change,
using A1f, A2, B2, B1 scenarios based on the Special Report on Emission Scenarios
(SRES) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Nakicenovic and
Swart 2000). The impacts of future climate were assessed according to four general
circulation models (GCMs; PCM, CGCM2, CSIRO2, HadCM3), using GCM outputs
from the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (http://www.ipcc-data.org). Vulnerability was
defined as a function of potential impacts and adaptive capacity to global change and was
looked at for six sectors, namely agriculture, forestry, carbon storage, water, nature
conservation, and mountain tourism. In the context of this work package, especially their
conclusions for forestry, carbon storage, and nature conservation are of interest. Opposed
to global trends, all investigated climate scenarios showed an increased forest growth
throughout Europe. Especially northern Europe benefitted from the longer growing
season due to increased temperatures. An increased number of summer droughts in
southern Europe was partly mitigated by higher precipitation in spring and increased
water-use efficiency caused by an elevated atmospheric CO2 level (see also Schröter et al.
2005).
The results of the ATEAM project for carbon storage were ambiguous. Generally, the
increase in forest areas led to enhanced storage capacities within Europe, however, soil
carbon losses due to warming balanced the positive effects by 2050 and led to carbon
releases by the end of this century. In the assessment of the ATEAM project, biodiversity
was regarded as an ecosystem service as such, without resolving the links to specific
services as given in Table 1. A statistical modeling framework (Thuiller 2004, Thuiller et
al. 2005) showed that especially mountains and Mediterranean species were
disproportionately sensitive to climate change.
8
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Monetary valuation of Biodiversity and Ecosystems
The presentation of the approach taken by Costanza et al. (1997) and their results
demonstrate that it is recognized that biodiversity provides a wide range of direct and
indirect benefits at both local and global scales, and that many human activities
contribute to unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss which threaten the stability and
continuity of ecosystems as well as their provision of goods and services. This having
been said, we are not aware of any theoretical and empirical published valuation literature
that considers biodiversity in the context of climate change (Berry et. al. 2006). Most of
the valuation literature on biodiversity considers the monetary assessment of changes in
biodiversity benefits caused by other types of human activities (see Nunes and van den
Bergh, 2001 for a recent review). A notable exception is the study by Velarde et al.
(2005) that uses a WTP approach to value the effects of climate change on protected
areas in Africa. In order for monetary assessment to be meaningful there are a number of
requirements in relation to the change(s) in biodiversity (or ecosystem) being valued.
Inter alia, for biodiversity, these requirements include:
 that a clear life diversity level is chosen (in the present climate change context,
species diversity – technically from an ecological perspective number of species
should be referred to as species richness. Diversity also includes the number of
individuals of a species;
 that a concrete biodiversity change scenario is formulated (e.g. based on
UKCIP02 climate scenarios);
 that changes are within certain geographical boundaries, and;
 that the particular perspective on biodiversity value is made explicit (in the
present context, an economic welfare (WTP) perspective).
Relatively few valuation studies have met these requirements to date in any context – for
good reason. There is, for example, insufficient knowledge about the number of species
and the variety of interrelationships in which species exist in different ecosystems, and
the functions among ecosystems. There are, however, some generic, non-climate change
context, research efforts that are now trying to address these shortcomings. For example,
van der Heide et. al. (2005) extend Weitzman’s earlier attempt to rank biodiversityprotecting projects (Weitzman, 1998) on the basis on genetic distance to include
ecological relationships between species.
In contrast, Tol, (2002), values global impacts on species, ecosystems and landscapes by
assuming that climate change is unambiguously perceived as bad and that the actual
change does not matter, though the fact that something has changed, does matter. This
change is then valued by the “warm-glow” effect that arises from the fact that people’s
willingness to pay reflects their desire to contribute to a vaguely described “good cause”,
rather than to a well-defined environmental change. A value of £35 per person per habitat
is assumed, whilst it is also assumed that one habitat per year is lost.
9
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Other recent valuation efforts have used cost-based approaches, i.e. based on supply or
resource cost data.1 Estimates of the potential costs (or savings) to households and
producers for example, can be obtained by using:

the cost of replacing the good or service provided by the affected exposure
unit after the climate change impact has occurred; or

the cost of reducing or avoiding the climate change impact on the exposure
unit before it occurs.
The former are known as replacement costs (restoration costs or corrective expenditures).
The latter are referred to as averting or preventative expenditures. Whilst an advantage of
these techniques is that data may be more readily available than WTP-based techniques,
there is a problem in their use in that they obscure the distinction between costs and
benefits. For example, if it is not known that society is willing to pay the estimated
replacement cost, then the technique provides an upper estimate of the economic cost
(WTP) of the damage. On the other hand, if the replaced asset does not completely
compensate for the environmental loss, then the technique provides a lower limit to the
damage cost estimate. Restoration cost approaches therefore do not necessarily bear any
relation to ‘true’ social values: individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the
replacement/restoration of a damaged asset may be more or less than the costs that would
be incurred in doing so. However, if it is likely that society is willing to pay the cost of
achieving e.g. a certain level of biodiversity, the cost may be interpreted as a collective
WTP. An example of the use of this approach is Berry et. al., (2006), who used habitat
restoration and re-creation cost data from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) in
combination with the modeled results of species change, and an assumed relationship
between species change and habitat change, to derive climate change impact costs.
Impacts of climate change on forests and forestry
Global forests are affected by atmospheric and climate variability and change such as
CO2 fertilization, N fertilization by N deposition, plant growth suppression by air
pollution and changes in plant production or soil respiration due to decreasing soil water
content or elevated soil temperature (Davidson 2000, Gaumont-Guay 2006, Canadell et al.
2007). These changes will also have an effect on the forest’s role as a provider of timber
production, water cycle, evaporative cooling effect and other environmental services.
Predicted changes in climate have also raised concerns about potential impacts on the
strength and permanence of the observed terrestrial C sink in the Northern Hemisphere
(Ciais et al. 1995, Ciais et al. 2005). Besides atmospheric phenomena like the Southern
Ocean circulation a main source of the uncertainty is the response of vegetation and soil
carbon to global change (Friedlingstein et al. 2003). In fact, based on the ecosystem
model inter-comparison approach, Gerten et al. (2008) suggest the importance of
precipitation as a driver of change in ecosystems but the ultimate response of a particular
site will depend on the detailed nature and seasonal timing of precipitation change.
1
That is, the valuation is from the supply side of the market rather than the demand side.
10
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Despite differences in the magnitude of response, global vegetation models coupled to
climate models show a positive feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle of
terrestrial ecosystems, i.e. climate change is likely to cause additional CO2 emissions
from these systems. Some simulations of coupled models expect that the biosphere will
turn into a source in the next decades (Cox et al. 2000, Cox et al. 2004, Friedlingstein et
al. 2006, Canadell and Raupach 2008). In boreal forest ecosystem, the long-term forcing
is a balance between post-fire increase in surface albedo and the radiative forcing from
greenhouse gases emitted during combustion, and in temperate forest ecosystem, its net
climate forcing is highly uncertain (Bonan 2008). Carbon storage by the land biosphere
becomes thus more uncertain. Other estimates (Schaphoff et al. 2006) ranged from -106
to +201 Gt C by the end of the century, revealing, that even the sign of the response,
whether the terrestrial biosphere will be a future source or sink, is uncertain.
Climate change will also increase climate variability and most probably lead to more
frequent and severe extreme weather conditions (IPCC 2001, 2007). Just recently a joint
effort compiled measurements of ecosystem CO2 fluxes, remotely sensed radiation
absorbed by plants, and country-level crop yields recorded during the European heat
wave in 2003 and compared them to modelled data (Ciais et al. 2005). July temperatures
in 2003 were up to 6 degrees C above long-term means, and annual precipitation deficits
up to 300mm per year, 50% below the average. The group estimated a 30% reduction in
GPP over Europe, which resulted in an anomalous net source to the atmosphere, i.e.
compared to ‘normal’ conditions the sink capability of the European terrestrial biosphere
was reduced significantly.
Forests are vulnerable to climate change. There is an overall agreement that climate
change will have a feedback on both, single processes in plants and large-scale forest
dynamics. Independent from the question ‘sink or source’: climate change leads to an
increased exchange of CO2 due to increased metabolic activity and higher turnovers. The
rate of change in climate variables is important: damages and shifts in the C balance are
especially caused when there is a) a rapid change and b) a large change exceeding
tolerance boundaries for water and temperature. As an effect of a climate change
feedback the response could result in a considerably lower carbon sequestration rate or
even a switch to a net source, both leading to a faster increase of the airborne fraction of
CO2 in the future and diminishing the potential of forests and the forestry sector for
climate change mitigation.
Besides natural breakdown (tree death) and harvest, C emissions tend to result from
disturbances (storms, fire, pest outbreak). Forest fires have the potential to release large
amounts of CO2 within a short period of time. In a fire, carbon accumulated over decades
may be emitted within a few hours (Körner 2003). In many ecosystems of the world
forest fires occur regularly representing a natural disturbance and strongly influencing
biomass accumulation. In these regions, like the boreal forests of Siberia, climate change
may affect ecosystem functions predominantly via changes in fire regimes (e.g. Wirth et
al. 1999, Bonan 2008). Using a carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector
(CBM-CFS3), Kurz et al. (2008) recently reported that the managed forests of Canada
could be a source of between 30 and 245 Mt CO2e/yr during the first Kyoto Protocol
11
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
commitment period (2008–2012) due to the strong impact of natural disturbances. They
conclude that recent transition from sink to source is the result of large insect outbreaks.
Disturbance regimes are not only indirectly changed through human activity. Mollicone
et al. (2006) examined the number of forest-fire events across the boreal Russian
Federation for the period 2002 to 2005. They separated forest area into ‘intact’ forests,
where human influence is limited, and in ‘non-intact’ forests, which have been shaped by
human activity. The results show that there were more fires in years during which the
weather was anomalous, but that more than 87% of fires in boreal Russia were likely to
have been started by people.
While the area affected by forest fires in temperate and boreal forests is currently
decreasing, burned areas increased exponentially in tropical forests, reaching 54 Mha per
year in the 1990s (Mouillot and Field 2005). According to the authors, this increase
reflects the use of fire in deforestation for expansion of agriculture. Severe fire events in
tropical regions like in the Indonesian peat forests in late 1997 were caused by extreme
drought conditions e.g. resulting from El Nino anomalies (Siegert et al. 2001). The
frequency of drought, for example in Amazonian forests, will be a prime determinant of
both how often forest fires occur and how extensive they become (Balch et al. 2008,
Cochrane and Barber 2009). Tropical forests are historically extremely resistant to fire
spread because of high moisture contents and dense canopies. Based on the study in
Amazonian forests, Cochrane and Barber (2009) warn that climate change will affect the
fire situation in the Amazon directly, through changes in temperature and precipitation,
and indirectly, through climate-forced changes in vegetation composition and structure.
However, forest fires primarily affected recently logged forests. Human activity is thus
also one of the largest uncertainties for many so-called ‘natural’ disturbances. It can both
enhance and suppress disturbances such as fires through anthropogenic ignition, fire
suppression and fire management by timber exploitation and debris abandonment (Ito
2005). The potential mitigation contribution of forest management has to be seen in the
perspective of changing environmental (but also economical) conditions.
Possible research strategy for ClimateCost
In this work package, we will assess the impacts of climate change on ecosystems,
biodiversity, forestry and selected ecosystem services. For this, we will use the widely
tested global vegetation model LPJmL (Bondeau et al. 2007). LPJmL uses process-based
descriptions of the relation between atmospheric conditions, soils, and land use to assess
ecosystem structures, including many characteristics for relevance to ecosystem service
provision. We will evaluate the impacts of scenarios from WP1 for Europe, China, India
and the USA. For these scenarios, we calculate the resulting natural vegetation structure
and compare present with future scenarios with and without adaptation. These results will
be related to a statistical biodiversity model, to assess the consequences for global species
richness. Although statistical models have been applied to assess the impacts of climate
conditions on biodiversity (Kreft and Jetz 2007), the assessments have been correlated to
climate patterns and not to vegetation patterns until now. Here, we will follow a new
approach to improve the assessments. A first successful step into this direction was
12
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
conducted by Rickebusch et al. (2008), who coupled plant habitat models of more than
100 European tree species to results gained with a global vegetation model, to assess the
impact of an elevated atmospheric CO2-level on tree species distribution. However, a
thorough investigation of this kind of coupling is still missing.
The ideal research exercise for estimating the potential welfare values associated with
climate change impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity would be to undertake a number
of primary WTP valuation studies on a range of identified, and prioritised, changes in
ecosystem services in the EU likely to result from climate change. However, there is
insufficient budget available and we are obliged to rely principally on secondary data.
Our suggestion is to proceed in two ways reflecting the two approaches that have been
used to date. The first is WTP-based. We intend to map existing WTP results available
from the published literature on to the changes in ecosystem services identified from
application of the vegetation model, to the extent that this is found to be reasonable. The
degree to which it is reasonable is determined by the extent to which value transfer of
results between different contexts is judged to be acceptable. In this respect we will
follow the method used by Velarde et al. (2005) in their valuation of protected areas in
Africa.
The second, comparative, approach that we intend to adopt is a cost-based method that
uses data on the costs of restoring particular types of habitat following an (adverse)
change as the result of climate change. This approach is likely to rely on estimation of
ecosystem service – habitat relationships, as far as they can be identified across the EU.
The exercise will build on recent research efforts such as Berry et. al. (2006), and the
economic assessment undertaken in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Clearly, the valuation component of this work-package will be exploratory; any
quantitative results are likely to be surrounded by uncertainty to an even greater degree
than that attached to other applications of valuation of climate change impacts. However,
it is intended that, at the least, the parameters of future research in this area will be better
understood as a result.
Furthermore, the results for forest composition will be used to parameterise the DIMA
model to assess the potential impacts on forestry. The DIMA model (Kindermann et al.
2008) is a spatially explicit model of forestry and alternative land use, which quantifies
the economic impacts of global forests. In this frame, ecosystem services such as carbon
sequestration, biomass for bioenergy, and timber supply will be calculated as 100-year
economic forecasts.
Input data from other work packages
1. LPJmL
To run various scenarios of climate change, LPJmL requires the following daily
climate data on a resolution of 0.5° by 0.5° from work package 1:
- temperature
- precipitation
- cloudiness
CO2
-
13
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
If daily data is not available, LPJmL requires additionally
- wet days per month
- Tmin and Tmax
2. G4M
From LPJ G4M would ideally receive data on:
- NPP (e.g. 10-year interval) for different climate scenarios: the time step
essentially depends on the modeling horizon and the required precision.
For example, for a 100-year horizon a 10 year step would result in 10 time
points for input data and linear interpolation for the time in between. This
is to limit the size of the input dataset. If necessary, yearly data can be
used as well. Spatial resolution is 0.5x0.5 deg.
- Vegetation zones for different climate scenarios (time and spatial
resolutions as above)
- Decomposition rates for dead trees, fine and coarse litter, fine and coarse
roots (time and spatial resolutions as above)
- Litter and soil accumulation rates (in case of afforestation, time and spatial
resolution as above)
- Growth rate of trees (same time and spatial resolution)
- Fire frequency maps? Other disturbance parameters?
Potential input to the IAM and CGM tasks
1. LPJmL
LPJmL simulates vegetation composition and the carbon and water budget across
ecosystems. The capacity of terrestrial carbon sequestration in ecosystems can be
evaluated for different scenarios and different areas.
The assessment of vegetation composition includes the cover of different plant
functional types, and therefore, shifts in ecosystem composition are detectible.
General biodiversity patterns can be assessed as a function of ecosystem
composition.
A valuation of these changes will be undertaken by Metroeconomica. However,
monetising ecosystems and biodiversity has proved problematic in the past,
therefore the possibilities of translating impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity
into concrete input into the IAM and CGM tasks have to be discussed further.
2. G4M, GLOBIOM
 G4M
- forest biomass: Current status, development over time depending on
different management scenarios (change of rotation time and thinning) and
land use change (afforestation, deforestation) depending on the target e.g.
produce as much wood as possible or store carbon in forests.
- forest products: G4M can spatial explicit estimate how much sawnwood,
pulp paper and fuel wood can be produced over time, depending on the
desired management target.
14
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
-
G4M can estimate the potential forest increment, independent if there is
currently forest or not. It can estimate the costs of harvest.
 GLOBIOM
- for major crops, animal calories and aggregated wood products:
 supply and demand quantities
 equilibrium prices
 volumes traded between the regions
- land use change
- water consumption
 G4M linked with GLOBIOM: projections on
- deforestation rate and corresponding emissions
- afforestation rate and corresponding carbon sequestration
- sensitivity of the deforestation and afforestation to the climate change
scenario as well as to the economic drivers
- influence of fire risk on deforestation, afforestation and wood supply
References
Adrian, R., R. Deneke, U. Mischke, R. Stellmacher, and P. Lederer. 1995. A long-term
study of the Heiligensee(1975-1992). Evidence for effects of climatic change on
the dynamics of eutrophied lake ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 133:315-337.
Ainsworth, E. A., and S. P. Long. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air
CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of
photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New
Phytologist:351-371.
Allen, C. D., and D. D. Breshears. 1998. Drought-induced shift of a forest-woodland
ecotone: rapid landscape response to climate variation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 95:14839-14842.
Angert, A., S. Biraud, C. Bonfils, C. C. Henning, W. Buermann, J. Pinzon, C. J. Tucker,
and I. Fung. 2005. Drier summers cancel out the CO2 uptake enhancement
induced by warmer springs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
102:10823-10827.
Araujo, M. B., R. G. Pearson, W. Thuiller, and M. Erhard. 2005. Validation of speciesclimate impact models under climate change. Global Change Biology 11:15041513.
Austin, M. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment
and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling 200:1-19.
Badeck, F.-W., A. Bondeau, K. Böttcher, D. Doktor, W. Lucht, J. Schaber, and S. Sitch.
2004. Responses of spring phenology to climate change. New Phytologist
162:295-309.
Badeck, F.-W., H. Lischke, H. Bugmann, T. Hickler, K. Hönninger, P. Lasch, M. Lexer,
F. Mouillot, J. Schaber, and B. Smith. 2001. Tree Species Composition in
European Pristine Forests: Comparison of Stand Data to Model Predictions.
Climatic Change 51:307-347.
15
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Bakkenes, M., J. R. M. Alkemade, F. Ihle, R. Leemans, and J. B. Latour. 2002. Assessing
effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European
higher plants for 2050. Global Change Biology 8:390-407.
Balch, J. K., D. C. Nepstad, P. M. Brando, L. M. Curran, O. Portela, O. de Carvalho JR,
and P. Lefebvre. 2008. Negative fire feedback in a transitional forest of
southeastern Amazonia. Global Change Biology 14:2276-2287.
Balmford, A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. E. Green, M. Jenkins, P.
Jefferiss, V. Jessamy, and J. Madden. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving
wild nature. Science 297:950-953.
Barry, J. P., C. H. Baxter, R. D. Sagarin, and S. E. Gilman. 1995. Climate-Related, LongTerm Faunal Changes in a California Rocky Intertidal Community. Science
267:672-675.
Berry, P., A. Hunt, and P. Nunes (2006) Chapter 6: Biodiversity. In Task 3 Report Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: Cross-Regional Research Programme:
Project E – Quantify the cost of future impacts. Report for Defra by
Metroeconomica Ltd.
Bazzaz, F. A. 2001. Plant biology in the future. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 98:5441-5445.
Boisvenue, C., and S. W. Running. 2006. Impacts of climate change on natural forest
productivity-evidence since the middle of the 20th century. Global Change
Biology 12:862-882.
Bonan, G. B. 2008. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate
Benefits of Forests. Science 320:1444-1449.
Bond, W. J., G. F. Midgley, and F. I. Woodward. 2003. The importance of low
atmospheric CO2 and fire in promoting the spread of grasslands and savannas.
Global Change Biology 9:973-982.
Bondeau, A., P. C. Smith, S. O. N. Zaehle, S. Schaphoff, W. Lucht, W. Cramer, D.
Gerten, H. Lotze-Campen, C. Muller, and M. Reichstein. 2007. Modelling the role
of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Global
Change Biology 13:679-706.
Both, C., A. V. Artemyev, B. Blaauw, R. J. Cowie, A. J. Dekhuijzen, T. Eeva, A.
Enemar, L. Gustafsson, E. V. Ivankina, and A. Järvinen. 2004. Large-scale
geographical variation confirms that climate change causes birds to lay earlier.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:1657.
Both, C., and M. E. Visser. 2001. Adjustment to climate change is constrained by arrival
date in a long-distance migrant bird. Nature 411:296-298.
Bradshaw, W. E., and C. M. Holzapfel. 2006. Climate change - Evolutionary response to
rapid climate change. Science 312:1477-1478.
Bugmann, H., B. Zierl, and S. Schumacher. 2005. Projecting the Impacts of Climate
Change on Mountain Forests and Landscapes. Pages 477-487 Global Change and
Mountain Regions.
Callaghan, T., L. Bjorn, F. Chapin III, Y. Chernov, T. Christensen, B. Huntley, R. Ims,
M. Johansson, D. Jolly, S. Jonasson, and others. 2005. Arctic tundra and polar
desert ecosystems. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:243--352.
16
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Canadell, J. G., M. U. F. Kirschbaum, W. A. Kurz, M.-J. Sanz, B. Schlamadinger, and Y.
Yamagata. 2007. Factoring out natural and indirect human effects on terrestrial
carbon sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Policy doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.009.
Canadell, J. G., and M. R. Raupach. 2008. Managing Forests for Climate Change
Mitigation. Science 320:1456-1457.
Ciais, P., M. Reichstein, N. Viovy, A. Granier, J. Ogee, V. Allard, M. Aubinet, N.
Buchmann, C. Bernhofer, A. Carrara, F. Chevallier, N. De Noblet, A. D. Friend,
P. Friedlingstein, T. Grunwald, B. Heinesch, P. Keronen, A. Knohl, G. Krinner,
D. Loustau, G. Manca, G. Matteucci, F. Miglietta, J. M. Ourcival, D. Papale, K.
Pilegaard, S. Rambal, G. Seufert, J. F. Soussana, M. J. Sanz, E. D. Schulze, T.
Vesala, and R. Valentini. 2005. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity
caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437:529-533.
Ciais, P., P. P. Tans, M. Trolier, J. W. C. White, and R. J. Francey. 1995. A Large
Northern-Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the C-13/C-12 Ratio of
Atmospheric CO2. Science 269:1098-1102.
Cochrane, M. A., and C. P. Barber. 2009. Climate change, human land use and future
fires in the Amazon. Global Change Biology 15:601-612.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S.
Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, and J. Paruelo. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Cox, P. M., R. A. Betts, M. Collins, P. P. Harris, C. Huntingford, and C. D. Jones. 2004.
Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st
century. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 78:137-156.
Cox, P. M., R. A. Betts, C. D. Jones, S. A. Spall, and I. J. Totterdell. 2000. Acceleration
of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model.
Nature 408:184-187.
Crick, H. Q. P., and T. H. Sparks. 1999. Climate change related to egg-laying trends.
Nature 399:423.
Davidson, E. A., Verchot, L., Cattânio, J., Ackerman, I., and Carvalho, J. 2000. Effects of soil
water content on soil respiration in forests and cattle pastures of eastern Amazonia.
Biogeochemistry 48:53-69.
Davis, A. J., L. S. Jenkinson, J. H. Lawton, B. Shorrocks, and S. Wood. 1998. Making
mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming.
Nature 391:783-786.
Díaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to
ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:646-655.
Drake, B. G., M. A. Gonzalez-Meler, and S. P. Long. 1997. More efficient plants: a
consequence of rising atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Biology
48:609-639.
Dukes, J. S., and H. A. Mooney. 1999. Does global change increase the success of
biological invaders? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14:135-139.
Dunne, J. A., J. Harte, and K. J. Taylor. 2003. Subalpine meadow flowering phenology
responses to climate change: integrating experimental and gradient methods.
Ecological Monographs 73:69-86.
17
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nystrom, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J.
Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 1:488-494.
Farber, S. C., R. Costanza, and M. A. Wilson. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts
for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41:375-392.
Fitter, A. H., and R. S. R. Fitter. 2002. Rapid changes in flowering time in British plants.
Science 296:1689-1691.
Flannigan, M. D., B. J. Stocks, and B. M. Wotton. 2000. Climate change and forest fires.
Science of the Total Environment 262:221-229.
Folke, C., C. S. Holling, and C. Perrings. 1996. Biological Diversity, Ecosystems, and the
Human Scale. Ecological Applications 6:1018-1024.
Friedlingstein, P., P. M. Cox, R. A. Betts, L. Bopp, W. Von Bloh, V. Brovkin, P. Cadule,
S. Doney, M. Eby, I. Fung, G. Bala, J. John, C. D. Jones, F. Joos, T. Kato, M.
Kawamiya, W. Knorr, K. Lindsay, H. D. Matthews, T. Raddatz, P. Rayner, C.
Reick, E. Roeckner, K.-G. Schnitzler, R. Schnur, K. Strassmann, A. J. Weaver, C.
Yoshikawa, and N. Zeng. 2006. Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results
from the C4MIP model intercomparison. Journal of Climate 19:3337–3353.
Friedlingstein, P., J. L. Dufresne, P. M. Cox, and P. Rayner. 2003. How positive is the
feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? Tellus Series B-Chemical
& Physical Meteorology 55:692-700.
Gaumont-Guay, D., Black, T., Griffis, T., Barr, A., Morgenstern, K., Jassal, R., and Nesic, Z.
2006. Interpreting the dependence of soil respiration on soil temperature and water
content in a boreal aspen stand. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 140:220-235.
Gerten, D., and R. Adrian. 2000. Climate-driven changes in spring plankton dynamics
and the sensitivity of shallow polymictic lakes to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Limnology and Oceanography:1058-1066.
Gerten, D., Y. Luo, G. L. Maire, W. J. Parton, C. Keough, E. Weng, C. Beier, P. Ciais,
W. Cramer, J. S. Dukes, P. J. Hanson, A. A. K. Knapp, S. Linder, D. Nepstad, L.
Rustad, and A. Sowerby. 2008. Modelled effects of precipitation on ecosystem
carbon and water dynamics in different climatic zones. Global Change Biology
14:2365-2379.
Grabherr, G., M. Gottfried, and H. Pauli. 1994. Climate effects on mountain plants.
Nature 369:448-448.
Hartig, E. K., V. Gornitz, A. Kolker, F. Mushacke, and D. Fallon. 2002. Anthropogenic
and climate-change impacts on salt marshes of Jamaica Bay, New York City.
Wetlands 22:71-89.
Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C. B. Field, P. C. Frumhoff, E. P. Maurer, N. L. Miller, S. C.
Moser, S. H. Schneider, K. N. Cahill, and E. E. Cleland. 2004. Emissions
pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 101:12422-12427.
Hickling, R., D. B. Roy, J. K. Hill, R. Fox, and C. D. Thomas. 2006. The distributions of
a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Global Change
Biology 12:450-455.
Hickling, R., D. B. Roy, J. K. Hill, and C. D. Thomas. 2005. A northward shift of range
margins in British Odonata. Global Change Biology 11:502-506.
18
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Hinsley, S. A., and P. E. Bellamy. 2000. The influence of hedge structure, management
and landscape context on the value of hedgerows to birds: a review. Journal of
Environmental Management 60:33-49.
Ibañez, I., J. S. Clark, M. C. Dietze, K. Feeley, M. Hersh, S. LaDeau, A. McBride, N. E.
Welch, and M. S. Wolosin. 2006. Predicting biodiversity change: outside the
climate envelope, beyond the species-area curve. Ecology 87:1896-1906.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge
University Press, UK.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for
Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Paris.
IPCC WG1. 2007. Climate change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of
Working Group I to the fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovenmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press.
IPCC WG2. 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability;
Contribution of Working Group 2 to the fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ito, A. 2005. Modelling of carbon cycle and fire regime in an east Siberian larch forest.
Ecological Modelling 187:121-139.
Johnstone, J. F., and F. S. Chapin. 2003. Non-equilibrium succession dynamics indicate
continued northern migration of lodgepole pine. Global Change Biology 9:14011409.
Karst-Riddoch, T. L., M. F. J. Pisaric, and J. P. Smol. 2005. Diatom responses to 20th
century climate-related environmental changes in high-elevation mountain lakes
of the northern Canadian Cordillera. Journal of Paleolimnology 33:265-282.
Keller, F., S. Goyette, and M. Beniston. 2005. Sensitivity analysis of snow cover to
climate change scenarios and their impact on plant habitats in alpine terrain.
Climatic Change 72:299-319.
Kindermann, G., M. Obersteiner, B. Sohngen, J. Sathaye, K. Andrasko, E. Rametsteiner,
B. Schlamadinger, S. Wunder, and R. Beach. 2008. Global cost estimates of
reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 105:10302.
Körner, C. 2003. Slow in, rapid out - Carbon flux studies and Kyoto targets. Science
300:1242-1243.
Kramer, K., I. Leinonen, and D. Loustau. 2000. The importance of phenology for the
evaluation of impact of climate change on growth of boreal, temperate and
Mediterranean forests ecosystems: an overview. International Journal of
Biometeorology 44:67-75.
Kreft, H., and W. Jetz. 2007. Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:5925.
Kremen, C., and R. S. Ostfeld. 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and
managing ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3:540548.
19
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, R. L. Bugg, J. P. Fay, and R. W. Thorp. 2004. The area
requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities
in California. Ecology Letters 7:1109-1119.
Kullman, L. 2001. 20th century climate warming and tree-limit rise in the southern
Scandes of Sweden. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 30:72-80.
Kurz, W. A., G. Stinson, G. J. Rampley, C. C. Dymond, and E. T. Neilson. 2008. Risk of
natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada's forests to the global
carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105:1551-1555.
Landhäusser, S. M., and R. W. Wein. 1993. Postfire vegetation recovery and tree
establishment at the Arctic treeline: climate-change-vegetation-response
hypotheses. Journal of Ecology:665-672.
Lawson, P. W., E. A. Logerwell, N. J. Mantua, R. C. Francis, and V. N. Agostini. 2004.
Environmental factors influencing freshwater survival and smolt production in
Pacific Northwest coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:360-373.
Llorens, L., and J. Penuelas. 2005. Experimental evidence of future drier and warmer
conditions affecting flowering of two co-occurring Mediterranean shrubs.
International Journal of Plant Sciences 166:235-245.
Logan, J. A., J. Regniere, and J. A. Powell. 2003. Assessing the impacts of global
warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
1:130-137.
MA, M. E. A. 2005a. Chapter 1: Conceptual Framework. Pages 25-36 Ecosystems and
human well-being: Current State and Trends. Island Press.
MA, M. E. A. 2005b. Chapter 4: Biodiversity. Pages 77-122 Ecosystems and human
well-being: Current State and Trends. Island Press.
MA, M. E. A. 2005c. Chapter 11: Biodiversity Regulation of Ecosystem Services. Pages
297-329 Ecosystems and human well-being: Current State and Trends. Island
Press.
Marshall, E. J. P., and A. C. Moonen. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their
functions and interactions with agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 89:5-21.
Marshall, E. J. P., T. M. West, and D. Kleijn. 2006. Impacts of an agri-environment field
margin prescription on the flora and fauna of arable farmland in different
landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 113:36-44.
Midgley, G. F., G. O. Hughes, W. Thuiller, and A. G. Rebelo. 2006. Migration rate
limitations on climate change-induced range shifts in Cape Proteaceae. Diversity
and Distributions 12:555-562.
Mollicone, D., H. D. Eva, and F. Achard. 2006. Ecology - Human role in Russian wild
fires. Nature 440:436-437.
Mouillot, F., and C. B. Field. 2005. Fire history and the global carbon budget: a 1 degrees
x 1 degrees fire history reconstruction for the 20th century. Global Change
Biology 11:398-420.
Nakicenovic, N., and R. Swart. 2000. Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
20
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Nunes, P.A.L.D. and J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (2001) “Economic Valuation of
Biodiversity: Sense or Nonsense”, Ecological Economics 39: 203-222.
Nyberg, P., E. Bergstrand, E. Degerman, and O. Enderlein. 2001. Recruitment of pelagic
fish in an unstable climate: studies in Sweden's four largest lakes. AMBIO: A
Journal of the Human Environment 30:559-564.
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change.
Annual Reviews.
Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J. K. Hill, C. D. Thomas, H. Descimon, B.
Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru, W. J. Tennent, J. A. Thomas, and M.
Warren. 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species
associated with regional warming. Nature 399:579-583.
Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change
impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37-42.
Pausas, J. G., and D. Abdel Malak. 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns of fire and
climate change in the eastern Iberian Peninsula (Mediterranean Basin). Climatic
Change 63:337-350.
Peñuelas, J., and M. Boada. 2003. A global change-induced biome shift in the Montseny
mountains (NE Spain). Global Change Biology 9:131-140.
Reichstein, M., J. D. Tenhunen, O. Roupsard, J. ourcival, S. Rambal, F. Miglietta, A.
Peressotti, M. Pecchiari, G. Tirone, and R. valentini. 2002. Severe drought effects
on ecosystem CO2 and H2O fluxes at three Mediterranean evergreen sites:
revision of current hypotheses? Global Change Biology 8:999-1017.
Rickebusch, S., W. Thuiller, T. Hickler, M. B. Araújo, M. T. Sykes, O. Schweiger, and B.
Lafourcade. 2008. Incorporating the effects of changes in vegetation functioning
and CO 2 on water availability in plant habitat models. Biology Letters 4:556559.
Ricketts, T. H., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, and C. D. Michener. 2004. Economic value of
tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 101:12579-12582.
Ross, M. S., J. F. Meeder, J. P. Sah, P. L. Ruiz, and G. J. Telesnicki. 2000. The southeast
saline Everglades revisited: 50 years of coastal vegetation change. Journal of
Vegetation Science:101-112.
Schaphoff, S., W. Lucht, D. Gerten, S. Sitch, W. Cramer, and I. C. Prentice. 2006.
Terrestrial biosphere carbon storage under alternative climate projections.
Climatic Change 74:97-122.
Schindler, D. W., K. G. Beaty, E. J. Fee, D. R. Cruikshank, E. R. DeBruyn, D. L.
Findlay, G. A. Linsey, J. A. Shearer, M. P. Stainton, and M. A. Turner. 1990.
Effects of climatic warming on lakes of the central boreal forest. Science 250:967970.
Schröter, D., L. Acosta-Michlik, A. W. Arnell, M. B. Araújo, F. Badeck, M. Bakker, A.
Bondeau, H. Bugmann, T. Carter, and A. C. dl Vega-Leinert. 2004. ATEAM
(Advanced Terrestrial Ecosystem Analyses and Modelling) Final Report.
Schröter, D., W. Cramer, R. Leemans, I. C. Prentice, M. B. Araujo, N. W. Arnell, A.
Bondeau, H. Bugmann, T. R. Carter, and C. A. Gracia. 2005. Ecosystem service
supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310:1333-1337.
21
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Siegert, F., G. Ruecker, A. Hinrichs, and A. A. Hoffmann. 2001. Increased damage from
fires in logged forests during droughts caused by El Nino. Nature 414:437-440.
Sitch, S., B. Smith, I. C. Prentice, A. Arneth, A. Bondeau, W. Cramer, J. O. Kaplan, S.
Levis, W. Lucht, and M. T. Sykes. 2003. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant
geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation
model. Global Change Biology 9:161-185.
Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C.
Collingham, B. F. N. Erasmus, M. F. De Siqueira, A. Grainger, and L. Hannah.
2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145-148.
Thomas, C. D., and J. J. Lennon. 1999. Birds extend their ranges northwards. Nature
399:213.
Thuiller, W. 2003. BIOMOD-optimizing predictions of species distributions and
projecting potential future shifts under global change. Global Change Biology
9:1353-1362.
Thuiller, W. 2004. Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate
change. Global Change Biology 10:2020-2027.
Thuiller, W., S. Lavorel, M. B. Araújo, M. T. Sykes, and I. C. Prentice. 2005. Climate
change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 102:8245-8250.
Tol, R. (2002) Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change. Part 1: Benchmark
Estimates. Environmental and Resource Economics 21: 47-73
van der Heide, C.M., J.C.J.M. van den Bergh, and E. C. Van Ierland (2005) Extending
Weitzman’s economic ranking of biodiversity protection: Combining ecological
and genetic considerations. Ecological Economics 55: 218-223.
van der Wal, D., and K. Pye. 2004. Patterns, rates and possible causes of saltmarsh
erosion in the Greater Thames area (UK). Geomorphology 61:373-391.
Velarde, S., Malhi, Y., Moran, D., Wright, J., and S. Hussain (2005) Valuing the impacts
of climate change on protected areas in Africa. Ecological Economics 53: 21-33.
Visser, M. E., and C. Both. 2005. Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the
need for a yardstick. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B:
Biological Sciences 272:2561-2569.
Walther, G. R., S. Beißner, and C. A. Burga. 2005. Trends in the upward shift of alpine
plants. Journal of Vegetation Science 16:541-548.
Walther, G. R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C. Beebee, J. M.
Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to
recent climate change. Nature 416:389-395.
Weitzman, M. L. (1998) The Noah’s Ark Problem. Econometrica 66: 1279-1298
Winder, M., and D. E. Schindler. 2004. Climate change uncouples trophic interactions in
an aquatic ecosystem. Ecology 85:2100-2106.
Wirth, C., E. D. Schulze, W. Schulze, D. von Stunzner-Karbe, W. Ziegler, I. M.
Miljukova, A. Sogatchev, A. B. Varlagin, M. Panvyorov, S. Grigoriev, W.
Kusnetzova, M. Siry, G. Hardes, R. Zimmermann, and N. N. Vygodskaya. 1999.
Above-ground biomass and structure of pristine Siberian Scots pine forests as
controlled by competition and fire. Oecologia 121:66-80.
22
Work package 2F: Ecosystems and Forests
Review of literature
Woodward, F. I., and M. R. Lomas. 2004. Simulating vegetation processes along the
Kalahari transect. Global Change Biology 10:383-392.
23