Prof. Dr. Andrzej Kędziora, Prof. Dr. Zbigniew Kundzewicz
Research Center for Agricultural and Forest Environment
Polish Academy of Sciences e-mail: kedan@man.poznan.pl
Impact of climate and land use changes on natural resources in agricultural landscape.
1. Introduction
Global climate conditions are created and determined mainly by three sets of factors: physical processes and properties of atmosphere, chemical processes and composition of atmosphere and earth surface properties and processes. All these three sets of factors were influenced by human activity, especialy during the last century (Fig. 1). Three processes: energy flow, matter cycling and global atmospheric circulation are the main processes responsible for functioning of the climate system in different scales. The chemical and physical properties (concentration of greenhouse gases and cloudiness) of atmosphere determine the flux of solar energy incoming in the planetary system of the
Earth as well as the sum of energy remaining in the system (greenhouse effect). But, the interaction between atmosphere and the earth surface influences the effect of these three processes. Thermal conditions of the earth surface and lower atmosphere depend mainly on partitioning of solar flux into latent heat (evapotranspiration) and sensible heat (heating soil and atmosphere). In turn, this partitioning depends on earth surface character, mainly richness of vegetation and water bodies. The more intensive evaporating surface the less energy remains for air heating (Tab. 1). Bare soil uses 5 times more energy than forest or water body for air heating (Ryszkowski, Kędziora 1987). So, the change of chemical composition of the atmosphere and de-vegetation as well as decreasing water surface caused by human activity brings about the possibility of occurrence of vital changes of climate during last decades. One of the most important transformations caused by human activity was transformation of the stable ecosystems like forests, pastures, water bodies into unstable ones like arable land or urban areas (Fig. 2). Such land use changes impact unfavorably on the water balance structure; diminishing evapotranspiration and enhancing run-off (Tab. 2). During a dry year about
20% of precipitation is removed out of the landscape, while meadow and forest keep all the available water. During a wet year crop fields lose as much as 40% of precipitation, while forest only 20%.
Thus, forest and meadow are the landscape elements which conserve the water, while crop fields lose water unproductively. At present, there is an ongoing reforestation in Europe, but deforestation prevails in many countries of the Third World. Today, 40% of the Earth’s land surface is managed for cropland and pasture and natural forests cover another 30%. In developing countries, nearly 70% of people live in rural areas where agriculture is the largest supporter of livelihoods (Easterling et al.,
2007). This illustrates the importance of agricultural land for the socio-economy and the environment.
Agriculture has to feed increasing human population in the decades to come. Yet, since now many people suffer hunger or are undernourished, the Millennium Development Goals to reduce, globally,
1

the number of starving people by half until 2015, will be difficult to achieve. In Poland one can observe increase of grain crop area (Tab. 3). Agricultural land makes presently 60% of total territory of Poland, while cereals grow at 32% of whole area of country. Therefore, cereal fields constitute not only the dominant element of countryside, but also influence distribution of many organisms and affect their prospects for survival and migration.
The influence of the plant cover structure on the sensible heat flux will be illustrated by the results obtained in studies of the heat balance of sugar beet field, located in the vicinity of a field covered by the stubble left after wheat harvest. The active surface of intensively transpiring sugar beet field use much more solar energy for water evapotranspiration than stubble field does. This leads to large differences in surface temperatures of these ecosystems. The difference between surface temperature of stubble and sugar beet fields was up to 6.4 o C during a sunny day (Tab. 4), while the difference of air temperatures over these fields on the level of 2 m above ground was only 0.13 o C.
During a cloudy day the differences were much smaller, reaching only 1.1 o C on the active surface and disappearing on the level of 2 m above ground. The large vertical gradient of the air temperature near the surface strata indicates that on a sunny day much of sensible heat is transmitted from the earth surface to the atmosphere, enhancing the air turbulence. This process intensifies the exchange of mass in the boundary layer e.g. evapotranspiration. Such situation is characteristic for the anticyclonal circulation. In the studied landscape in summer such circulation cases occur during about 40 % of time.
Vertical gradient of air temperature on a sunny day is nearly 9 times higher over a stubble field than over the sugar beet field. On a cloudy day the vertical gradient over stubble field is negative, however 14 times smaller then on a sunny day. In the same time the vertical gradient over sugar beet field is positive. This is, of course, the result of plant transpiration, using more energy than the amount available from the sun. The transpiring sugar beet plants gain the lacking energy from the air causing temperature inversion. Thus bare soils or man-dried surfaces are the areas where convection is generated, which influence the energy and mass exchange at the local as well as a regional scale.
Vertical gradient of wind speed was higher over sugar beet field than over stubble field because of greater roughness of sugar beet field which, to some extent, compensates the effects described above.
The net radiation of the stubble field (184 W
 m -2 ) was much lower than net radiation of sugar beet (270 W
 m -2 ) mainly due to much higher reflection of solar radiation, as expressed by the albedo.
This difference was much lower on a cloudy day (Tab. 4). The active surface of the sugar beet field used near 4 times more energy on a sunny day and 3 times more on a cloudy day for evapotranspiration than did stubble field. But stubble field used 2.5 times more energy for air heating than sugar beet field on a sunny day. On a cloudy day the stubble field warmed up the air while the sugar beet field was cooling it.
2

Generally, it can be stated that biologically active ecosystems are damping down vertical exchange of sensible energy between the earth and the atmosphere, while the biologically inactive ecosystems (bare soil, stubble field) are the factors intensifying these processes.
2. Land use changes and their effects on natural resources in agricultural landscape
Many errors in management of agricultural landscape which have been made particularly during the last century brought about many threats in the landscape. The most important are increasing water deficit, soil degradation, erosion, water pollution and impoverishment of biodiversity .
Over decades, wrong guidelines in melioration practices focused mainly on drainage of wet soils and reduction of small water bodies in the landscape, neglecting accumulation of water within catchments, and caused a very deep water deficit. This deficit was enhanced by soil and habitat degradation. One can observe the worsening of moisture conditions of grasslands in Poland (Fig. 3).
Compaction of soil by heavy machines as well as decreasing organic mater content in the soil brought about worsening of water capacity and water retention of landscape. Drying up the soil together with cutting out shelterbelts and shrubs and fill up midfield ditches caused intensification, sometimes brought to sandstorm (Fig. 4). Farmers used a lot of fertilizers, usually more than the soil capacity and more than plants could use. Not utilized fertilizers were leached into ground water (especially in light soil) and caused very high pollution of water (Fig. 5). Aspiration of farmers to very high yields caused simplification of crop rotation and plant cover structure, which resulted in the decrease of flora and fauna of the agricultural landscape (Fig. 6). Monoculture leads to possible short-time income maximization, but adverse long-term effects as compared to heterogeneous landscape (different crops, but also islands and rows-shelterbelts of woody vegetation, strips of meadows, bushes etc, Fig. 7).
Natural land resources are being degraded through soil erosion, salinization of irrigated areas, dryland degradation from overgrazing, over-extraction of ground water, growing susceptibility to disease and build-up of pest resistance favored by the spread of monocultures and the use of pesticides, and loss of biodiversity and erosion of the genetic resource base when modern varieties displace the traditional ones.
The effects of land cover on microclimatic conditions (temperature, moisture, wind speed and so on) are well known. But the feedback of those modifications on the mesoscale air circulation, cloud formation and precipitation are less recognised. This information is crucial for tying up microscale modifications with global circulation models. Stohlgren et al. (1998) provided data indicating that land-use practices in the plains of Colorado influence regional climate and by this way they influence indirectly the vegetation in adjacent areas of the Rocky Mountains.
3. Climate variability and change and their effects on natural resources in agricultural landscape
Despite the climatic changes in the Second Millennium (Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice
Age), climate was typically assumed to be nearly stable, albeit subject to high natural variability. Such
3

climatic variables as temperature or precipitation deviated from mean value (which was considered constant over a longer period). However, nowadays one cannot really consider climate to be stable and its variability to be stationary. Stationarity is dead, as phrased by Milly et al. (2008).
There has been an increasing body of evidence of discernible ubiquitous global warming at a range of scales. As noted in IPCC (2001), the temperature increase over the 20th century for the
Northern Hemisphere is likely to have been greater than for any other century in the last thousand years. Global mean surface temperature has risen by 0.65°C over the last 50 years (IPCC, 2007) with disproportionately large warming in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Twelve of the last thirteen years belong to thirteen globally warmest years on record, i.e. since 1850. Most of the observed increase in global mean air temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the intensification of the greenhouse effect caused by the man-induced increase of concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Observed and predicted climate changes will increasingly influence processes and threats mentioned above. Increasing air temperature together with increasing net radiation will cause increasing saturation water deficit in the atmosphere (Fig. 6). This will lead to big increase of potential and real evapotranspiration, mainly in winter time. As indicated by Kundzewicz et al. (2008), shift in winter precipitation from snow to rain, and likely winter precipitation increase as temperatures rise, leads to increase of surface runoff and reduction of soil water storage in many regions. The spring snowmelt-caused runoff peak is brought forward or eliminated entirely, and winter flows increase.
This, together with increasing winter evaporation, will reduce the possibility of replenish soil water storage, leading to increase of frequency of a dry period in the summer and reduction of farmer crop yields. On the other hand, increasing frequency of extreme precipitation will lead to water erosion of soil. Decreasing actual evapotranspiration in summer period will cause reduction of latent heat flux.
So, more energy remains for air heating the air. The kinetics of atmosphere will lead to increase of wind speed and of the frequency and intensity of storms and tornados and, in consequence, the frequency of wind erosion. The amount of energy needed for evaporating of one-millimeter water layer can heat a layer of air of 33 m thickness by 60 o C. Increasing temperature and precipitation extremes will damage the plants and small animals. Decreasing ratio of summer to winter precipitation
(Fig. 7) and process of aridification caused that climate conditions in Poland become similar to conditions of the Mediterranean region. Such process is called mediterranization. These changes are not favorable for native flora and fauna and will cause affluence of invasive species plants and animals. Also occurrence of new pests, fungi, diseases and weeds is expected. Altogether, this will worsen the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes.
Distribution of climate change impacts on agriculture shows that there will be losers and winners. Aggregate indicators show that average productivity may increase up to the global warming of 2-3 o C, along with associated carbon dioxide (CO
2
) increase and rainfall changes, and decrease for higher warming. However, even small warming would worsen the situation for developing countries,
4

with yield reductions at lower latitudes, and increases in numbers of people at risk of hunger.
Globally, there should be major gains of potential agricultural land by the 2080s, particularly in North
America (20-50%) and the Russian Federation (40-70%). However, substantial losses (up to 9%) are predicted for sub-Saharan Africa, due to the increase in drought frequency.
Agriculture in Europe is temperature-limited in the North and North-East and moisture-limited in the South and South-East. Climate change is likely to reduce the former limitation and to exacerbate the latter. However, it is likely that in the forthcoming decades the average aggregate impact of climate-related change on agriculture in Europe will be positive. Projections show a considerable increase in the area suitable for grain maize production in Europe by the end of the 21st century. Gains in agricultural area and extension of the length of the growing season are expected in the North, but shrinking of agricultural area is likely in the South of Europe. However, even small warming and reduction in precipitation jeopardize crop yield in the South of Europe, where disadvantages are likely to be predominant. Large displacement in agricultural production is expected. Some warmer season crops that currently grow mostly in southern Europe (e.g., maize, sunflower and soybeans, grapes, olive trees) will move northwards and become viable further north or at higher-altitude areas in the south. Some energy crops (e.g. rape oilseed), starch crops (e.g., potatoes), cereals (e.g., barley) and solid biofuel crops (such as sorghum and Miscanthus) are projected to expand northwards but a reduction in southern Europe is likely. Attention: if winter rainfall rises, so does nutrient leaching (e.g. in otherwise beneficially affected Scandinavia).
Projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climate events (e.g., spells of high temperature, droughts and intense precipitation) will have significant and adverse, consequences for food and forestry production, and food insecurity. They are expected to reduce average crop yields and livestock productivity beyond the impacts due to changes in mean variables alone, creating the possibility for surprises. Excess heat and lack of water in sensitive phases of plant development (e.g. during the anthesis of wheat) drastically reduces the crop yield. On the other hand, abundance of water
(e.g. flooding of a field) or prolonged precipitation also adversely affect crops and enhance waterborne soil erosion.
Increasing climate variability will lead to increase in yield variability and will influence the risks of fires, and pest and pathogen outbreaks, with negative consequences for food, fiber and forestry.
Europe experienced a particularly extreme climate event during the summer of 2003, with temperatures up to 6°C above long-term means, and precipitation deficits up to 300 mm. Crop yield dropped by up to 20% and more in much of Southern Europe. The uninsured economic losses for the agriculture sector in the European Union were estimated at €13 billion (Easterling et al., 2007).
Rising atmospheric CO
2
concentration, lengthening of the growing season due to warming, nitrogen deposition and changed management have resulted in a steady increase in annual forest CO
2 storage capacity and increase of global net primary production and biomass. Thus, the overall trend towards longer growing seasons is consistent with an increase in the ‘greenness’ of vegetation,
5

reflecting changes in biological activity (Easterling et al., 2007). However, the warming can also change the disturbance regime of forests by extending the range of some damaging insects. Increasing temperatures may increase the risk of supporting the dispersal of insects, enhancing the survival from one year to the next; and improving conditions for new insect vectors that are now limited by colder temperatures. Existence of multiple stresses, such as limited availability of water resources, loss of biodiversity, and air pollution, lead to increase in the sensitivity to climate change and reduction of resilience in the agricultural sector.
Reaction of forest ecosystems to climate change is a special problem. Dividing the world into large bio-geographic regions corresponds to climate zones – climate variables, like temperature and rainfall, create natural boundaries for species distribution. That is why it is quite obvious that changes of current temperature, humidity and rainfall characteristics, will most certainly affect plant species distribution. This hypothesis is supported by palaeo-botanical and eco-physiologic research, extensive ecosystems observation and computer simulation.
Predicted changes concern the primary forest-creating species, which may loose their current optimum habitat and will be subject to all consequences of this fact: from biochemical and physiological changes, which will first occur in phenology, next in productivity and will affect health, subjectivity to known and unknown biotic threats, as well as resilience to factors of abiotic environment. It is hard to predict all the possible consequences for forest economy and conditions of forests, as the changes will not be limited to the species level, but will spread to ecosystem and landscape levels.
Potential reactions of forest ecosystems to climate changes may be classified as follows:
changes in forest location
changes in forest structure
changes in forest productivity
However, climate changes and movement of climate zones may be faster than changes in locations of plant communities. This might cause changes in forest areas and the ability of carbon sequestration (Smith, Shugart 1993). This is of crucial importance for location of natural forests. It is a lesser problem for managed forests and plantations, where foresters are able to plant seeds according to climatic preferences of species, assuming that past recognition of those preferences is still up to date
(Davis, Shaw 2001).
An especially important, complicated and most uncertain issue is that of increased CO
2
level impact on forest productivity. Many opinions suggest an increase in biomass growth if a “fertilizing effect” occurs, at least temporarily. The effect of “carbon fertilizing” on an ecosystem level will be limited by competition, insufficient level of other nutrition elements (water, minerals) and disturbances (insects, disease, fires, winds, etc.).
6

Forest, as intensively evaporates ecosystem, play very important role in shaping water cycle and structure of water balance (Pielke et all. 1998, Pielke 2001). Under convective condition water evaporated by the forest return partly into local o regional cycling increasing amount of precipitation.
Increase forest percentage by 1% causes increase annual precipitation by 5 mm (Bac 1968). This increase is higher in the warm period then in winter (higher probability of convective conditions). For
Poland, the optimal share of forest in landscape area will be 35%. Today we have 29%.
4 – Interaction between climate and land use
Climate change and its impacts are indeed closely interlinked to land surface processes dependent on land use and land cover. The role of land surface in climate variability and change is often underestimated. Thermal conditions of the Earth surface and lower atmosphere depend on the structure of Earth’s surface energy budget, and in particular on partitioning of the solar flux into latent heat (evapotranspiration) and sensible heat (responsible for heating soil and atmosphere), driven by the land surface structure, and in particular vegetation cover and inland water bodies. The more intensive evaporation the less energy remains for air heating. Changes of the composition of the atmosphere and the properties of the land surface are responsible for the climate changes during last decades.
Over bare land, the sensible heat flux dominates over the latent heat flux, resulting in heating up of the air and the soil, via the “oven” effect. Over a forest, the substantial latent heat flux does not allow heating up of the air and the soil.
Carbon storage in global plant cover amounts to 466 Gigatons, while carbon storage in global soils (to the depth of 1 m) is estimated as 2011 Gigatons.
The content of soil organic matter decides on water storage capacity. Organic matter can absorb ten times more water than mineral soils can do. Additionally, organic matter improves the structure of the soil and increases the amount of mesopores which improve water availability for plants. In brief, it improves soil fertility.
Changes in water availability are the integrated result of natural factors (such as volume and timing of precipitation, catchment storage, evapotranspiration and snowmelt, and whether precipitation falls as snow or rain), as well as watershed management practices and river engineering that alter the water conveyance system over time. It is difficult to disentangle the climatic effects from the effects of such human interventions in the catchment as reservoir construction and land-use and land-cover change (e. g. deforestation or afforestation, urbanization and agricultural activities). This latter group of factors also affects climatic variables via albedo, heat and water balance. However, changes in precipitation, temperature, energy availability, atmospheric humidity, wind speed, and also plant physiology effects of increased atmospheric CO
2
concentration influence evapotranspiration and runoff.
7

5 – Management aspects
Since warming is going on, and will accelerate, adaptation is a must. What can be done?
Agriculture can adapt to climate changes by short-term adjustments, such as changes in agronomic practices (date of planting, harvesting, external inputs, fertilizers), and long-term changes (land use, development of suitable crop types, resistant to location, water, weed, pest). Since irrigation demand is likely to grow while the water availability drops, improvements in efficiency of irrigation are needed
(“more crop per drop”). In order to adapt to more dry conditions, one considers such adaptation options as introducing new drought-resistant varieties, intercropping; crop residue retention; conservative tillage, weed management; water harvesting (Easterling et al., 2007).
Improving efficiency of water use in irrigation (slogan „more crops per drop”), increasing resistance to heat shock and drought, using water more effectively in areas with rainfall decreases is particularly important since irrigated agriculture is the main water user, globally, in volumetric terms.
Phenological changes are often followed by changes in management practices by farmers, altering the timing or location of cropping activities, e.g. advance of seeding/sowing dates. Among other measures are: changes of agrotechnical practices (to minimize the loss of soil moisture; conserve soil moisture (e.g., crop residue retention); use of crop rotation) and introduction of new cultivars (e.g. selecting varieties and/or species to those with more appropriate thermal time and vernalisation requirements and/or with altering fertilizer rates to maintain grain or fruit quality consistent with the climate and altering amounts and timing of irrigation and other water management practices (droughttolerant crops, with higher drought resistance and longer grain-filling). Soil should be protected against erosion (e.g., as a consequence of surface runoff and flash floods) and negative effects caused by cultivation, e.g. by reduction of fertilization with organic fertilizers; change of the structure of agricultural crops. Soil moisture should be conserved e.g. through mulching. However, extending of irrigated agriculture may not be a feasible solution everywhere. For instance, Polish agriculture is mostly rain-fed and – due to scanty, and variable, precipitation and the dominating lowland character, hence scarcity of sites for water storage reservoirs – no sufficient water volumes would be available for massive agricultural irrigations.
There are different adaptation options to climate change impacts on agriculture that imply different costs, ranging from changing practices in place to changing locations. Adaptation effectiveness ranges from marginal reduction of negative impacts to even changing a negative impact into a positive one. On average, in cereal cropping systems worldwide, adaptations such as changing varieties and planting times enable avoidance of a 10-15% reduction in yield corresponding to 1-2°C local temperature increase. However, adaptation stresses water and environmental resources as warming increases. Adaptive capacity in low latitudes is exceeded at 3°C local temperature increase
(Easterling et al., 2007).
Pressure to cultivate marginal land or to adopt unsustainable cultivation practices as yields drop may increase land degradation and resource use, and endanger biodiversity. A feasible long-term
8

adaptation measure is to change the allocation of agricultural land according to its changing suitability under climate change. Large-scale abandonment of cropland in Europe may provide an opportunity to increase the cultivation of bioenergy crops. Different types of agricultural adaptation (intensification, extensification and abandonment) may be appropriate (Alcamo et al., 2007).
Investigations show that landscape structure is the most important factor determining natural resistance of the environment against threats. The more mosaic structure of landscape the higher is the degree of landscape resistance and resilience to disturbances (e.g. disease). In order to improve the landscape structure, one can introduce forests, shelterbelts, strips of meadows and bushes; restore damaged postglacial ponds; and maintain wetlands and riparian ecosystems. Enhancing ecotones and biogeochemical barriers is the most efficient tool for controlling energy flow and matter cycling in the landscape, necessary for sustainable agriculture.
Many results of investigations show that landscape structure is the most important factor determining natural resistance of environment against threats. The more mosaic structure of landscape the higher is degree of landscape resistance. The best way of improving landscape structure is the introduction of shelterbelts, afforestation, strips of meadows and bushes, rebuilding of damaged postglacial ponds and maintaining wetlands and riparian ecosystems. The saturation of landscapes by ecotones and biogeochemical barriers is the most efficient tool for controlling energy flow and matter cycling, and the same is necessary for sustainable development of agriculture (Fig. 8).
Increasing of wetland and forest areas can in some degree slacken off increasing CO
2 concentration in the atmosphere. Wetland in temperate zone can sequester about 2 tons of carbon per hectare per year. Forest ecosystems can sequester in the tree biomass and in the soil. In soil can be sequester about 0.3 tons per hectare per year. But we must keep in mind that forests sequester carbon only during period of growth. Mature forest does not sequester carbon. Carbon can be also sequestered by arable land. If good agriculture practice is employed, increase of organic matter in the 30 cm ploughed layer of soil can reach as much as about 1 ton per hectare per year.
The shelterbelts introduced into grain monoculture landscape change the microclimatic conditions of the field as well as aerodynamic characteristics of an active surface. By reducing wind speed, stomatal resistance, and increasing the humidity, turbulence and net radiation, shelterbelts cause a slight increase of actual evapotranspiration of landscape taken as a whole, but decrease it from the cultivated field lying between shelterbelts.
The number of biogeochemical barriers in a landscape increases together with the increase of the complexity of the landscape. The content of biogens in ground water is reduced to a high degree when water flows under shelterbelts or meadow strips. A shelterbelt or meadow strip a dozen or so meter wide reduce nitrates concentration by 50 to 90% and phosphorus by up to more than 90%. The amount of nitrates leached from a uniform arable catchment is many times higher than from mosaic watershed.
The content of organic matter is one of the most important factors creating hydropedological properties of the soil. Organic matter can absorb ten times more water than mineral soils can do.
9

Additionally, organic matter improves the structure of the soil; increases the amount of mezopores rendering larger amount of water available for plants.
Control of the structure of agricultural landscape is important for mitigation of climate change and adaptation to climate change and its impacts. By arranging shelterbelts – strips of woody vegetation amidst cultivated fields – one can sequester carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide and store it in plant tissue and in the soil. The shelterbelts introduced into cereal monoculture landscape change the microclimate of the field as well as aerodynamic characteristics of an active surface.
Auxillary benefits of a shelterbelt include shelter for fauna, ecological corridors enhancing migration
(hence beneficial for biodiversity), water quantity (longer snow cover) and quality (extracting nutrients from groundwater), soil conservation, windbreaks, wood, mushrooms, berries, aesthetics. Shelterbelts counteract adverse effects related to water balance changes, remediate water pollution and enhance biodiversity. Hence they contribute to conservation of all three natural resources – water, soil and biodiversity.
6 – Final remarks
In order to counteract undesirable climatic tendencies, people must reverse the strongly increasing trend in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and removing vegetation, wetlands and small water bodies. Certainly, reduction of greenhouse gas concentration, restoration of vegetation, wetlands and water bodies would be even better.
Introduction of shelterbelts into simplified landscape is one of the best tools for managing the heat balance of the landscape. Shelterbelts reduce wind speed, conserve water supply of fields located between shelterbelts, but increase a little sensible heat flux (Tab. 5). However, during the strong advection of dry and warm air, irrigated fields can conserve 10% of water during evapotranspiration in comparison with a landscape without shelterbelts.
References
Alcamo, J., J.M. Moreno, B. Novaky, M. Bindi, R. Corobov, R.J.N. Devoy, C. Giannakopoulos, E.
Martin, J.E. Olesen, A. Shvidenko, 2007: Europe. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bac S. 1968. The role of forest in water balance. (In Polish). Folia Forestalia Polonica . Seria A, z. 14:
5-65.
Davis, M.B., Shaw, R.G., 2001: Range shift and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change.
Science , 292: 673-679.
Easterling, W.E., P.K. Aggarwal, P. Batima, K.M. Brander, L. Erda, S.M. Howden, A. Kirilenko, J.
Morton, J.-F. Soussana, J. Schmidhuber and F.N. Tubiello, 2007: Food, fibre and forest products.
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , M.L. Parry,
O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 273-313.
10

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Physical
Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva.
Kundzewicz Z.W., Mata L.J., Arnell N., Döll P., Jiménez B., Miller K., Oki T., Şen Z. &
ShiklomanovI. 2008. The implications of projected climate change for freshwater resources and their management. Hydrol. Sci. J.
53(1): 3--10.
Milly P.C.D., Betancourt J., Falkenmark M., Hirsch R.M., Kundzewicz Z.W., Lettenmaier D.P. &
Stouffer R.J. 2008. Stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science, 319: 573--574.
Pielke R. A., Avissar R., Raupach M., Dolman A. J., Zeng X., Denning A. S. 1998. Interactions between then atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems: influence on weather and climate. Global
Change Biology 4: 461-475.
Pielke, R. A. 2001. Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils on the prediction on cumulus convective rainfall. Reviews of Geophysics, 39(2), 151–177.
Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, D.J. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, B.
Seguin, P. Tryjanowski, 2007: Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change , M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 79-131.
Ryszkowski L., Kędziora A. 1995. Modification of the effects of global climate change by plant cover structure in an agricultural landscape. Geographia Polonica , 65: 5-34.
Ryszkowski L., Kędziora A. 1987. Impact of agricultural landscape structure on energy flow and water cycling. Landscape Ecology , vol. 1, no 2: 85-94.
Smith, T.M., Shugart, H.H., 1993: The transient response of terrestrial carbon storage to a perturbed climate. Nature, 361: 523-526.
Stohlgren T.J., Chase T.N., Pielke R.A., Kittels G.F., Baron J.S. 1998. Evidence that local land use practices influence reginal climate, vegetation and stream flow patterns in adjacent natural areas.
Global Change Biology 4: 495-504.
Werner A., Eulenstein F., Schindler U., Müller L., Ryszkowski L., Kędziora A. 1997.
Groundwasserneubildung und Landnutzung. Zeitschrift für Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung
38: 106-113.
11