http://www.hnee.de/_obj/BE29E046-31BC-47E1-9E05-1B7F7DA5A63E/outline/Blatt11_How-vulnerable-are-forest-ecosystems-to-CC.

pdf

How vulnerable are forest ecosystems

to climate change?
A methodological approach for an index-based analysis for
Brandenburg (northeastern Germany)
Jantje Blatt, Bjrn Ellner, Stefan Kreft, Lena Strixner, Vera Luthardt, Pierre Ibisch
Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development (University of Applied Sciences), Germany

Introduction
Climate change is increasingly exposing conservation targets (e.g., ecosystems, species, ecological processes) to a diversity of stresses, both directly and in interaction with
other anthropogenic stresses. Therefore any proactive and strategic nature conservation management should be based on a thorough vulnerability assessment of its targets.
Here, we propose an index of ecosystem vulnerability to climate change, taking the forests of Brandenburg State, northeastern Germany, as an example (see Fig. 1). The
index is designed to facilitate the identification of adaptive conservation strategies and thus support managers who are supposed to deal with increasing non-knowledge
concerning the highly uncertain future dynamics of climate change. It may be also used in prioritization exercises in the context of climate change-adaptive management.

Berlin

Legend
Boarder of federal
state
Forest area
http://www.moskau.diplo.de/Vertretung/moskau/de/01/Informationen/Deutschlandkart
e.gif

Lowland beech forest.

Figure 1: Forests in Brandenburg state, north-eastern Germany.

(Picture by V. Luthardt)

Pine-Plantation after fire. (Picture by V. Luthardt)

Drought impact on beech treelet.

(Picture by P. Ibisch)

Methodological Approach
The indicators build upon valid (empirical) data from literature and expert valuation. They are
Based on a literature review of vulnerability assessments,
scored on a scale from 1 (very low impact/ adaptive capacity) to 5 (very high). To calculate
a sound classification of stresses for ecosystems
an overall vulnerability score (V), the index combines all information on
caused by global climate change (Geyer et
Criteria
exposure and corresponding sensitivity (I) as well as adaptive capacity (A)
al. in press) and the participation of external
in the following algorithm:
experts, we identified relevant criteria
for the analysis of vulnerability,
Change of average
Sensitivity against
n
n
n
temperature
and
temperature
and
composed
by
exposure
Ai
precipitation
precipitation changes
( EDi * S Di )
( EIi * S Ii )
change and corresponding
I
i 1
i 1
i 1
A
V
I
sensitivity (= impact) as well as
AZ
I
A
Changes of type,
Z
Sensitivity
against
Components of
adaptive capacity of forest
frequency, intensity of
abiotic extreme events
Vulnerability
abiotic extreme events
ecosystems (see Fig. 3). Within
ED / SD = Indicators of direct exposure and corresponding sensitivity.
IMPACT
each
criterion,
semidirect
EI / SI = Indicators of indirect exposure and corresponding sensitivity.
quantitative (proxy) indicators
Sensitivity against
Changes of the
Sensitivity
changes of the
hydrological regime
Exposure
define
the
corresponding
The vulnerability scores are assigned to five relative vulnerability
hydrological regime
values. The indicators are
categories form slightly vulnerable to extremely vulnerable. The
indirect
designed to factor in all systemrelative vulnerability categories serve to compare the assessed
Changes of type,
frequency, intensity
relevant elements reflecting
Sensitivity against
systems regarding their different vulnerability-levels to climate
of biotic (pest)
biotic damages
1. the most important climate
disturbance regimes
change. We point out it is difficult to determine absolute
Adaptive Capacity
change stressors for forest
vulnerabilities due to the complexity of ecological processes and
ecosystems (water scarcity,
uncertainty of climate change factors that influence the systems
biotic damage, fire risk, storm
resilience and capacity to adapt.
Structural diversity
Ecological viability
calamity)
The scores are graded logarithmically in order to achieve a more
appropriate and balanced weighting of impact and adaptive capacity
2. the
relevant
ecological
Potential for natural
Ecological strategy
factors.
processes that are affected by
regeneration
type of characteristic
species
Additionally, we integrated two ecological threshold values that
such
exposure
change
come into play, when one (two) high exposure factor(s)
(sensitivity factors)
correspond(s) with one (two) highly rated sensitivity factor(s). We
3. those ecological functions
Figure 3:. Conceptual framework of vulnerability (based on IPCC Fourth
assume, that in this case the ecosystem type will react vulnerable
that
support
adaptation
Assessment Report, cf. Parry et al. 2007) and criteria of forest ecosystem
against climate change, independent from the other indicator ratings
processes to altered climatic
vulnerability against climate change (adopted from Polsky et al. 2003).
and calculated vulnerability scores. In such a case the ecosystem
conditions (adaptive capacity
will be ranked in the second highest (highest) vulnerability class.
factors) (see Fig. 4).
I M P A C T
Nr

Indicators of exposure change

Ed1

Projected change of average temperature, period 20312060

(reference: 1971-00) (according to Linke et al. 2010)

Ed2

Projected change of hydrological regime change of climatic

water balance (vegetation period) 2031-2060 (reference 1961-90),
Star 2 modell (PIK), combined with available water capacity (awc)
(adopted from Konopatzky 1998)

Nr Indicators of adaptive capacity

Nr

Indicators of sensitivity

A1 Ecosystem architecture

Sd1

Sensitivity against change of average temperature

Valuation by means of bioclimatic envelopes (Klling 2007,
adopted)

A2 Species diversity of tree species

Sd2

Sensitivity against change of hydrological regime

Valuation by means of Climate-Species-Matrix (KLAM)
(Roloff und Grundmann 2008, adopted)

Ei1

Projected change of max. windspeed, period 2031-2060 (reference

1961-90), Star 2 modell (PIK)

Si1

Sensitivity against change of max. windspeed Valuation

by means of Rottmann (1986, adopted)

Ei2

Projected change of fire risk Change in Forest Fire Risk Index

M68 for projection 2001-50 (reference 1951-98) (according to
Badeck et al. 2004)

Si2

Sensitivity against change of fire risk Valuation by means

of Resistance against forest fires (Otto 1994)

Ei3

Change of frequency and intensity of biotic damages expert

valuation

Si3

Sensitivity against change of frequency and intensity of biotic

damages expert valuation

A3

Potential for natural regeneration (Otto 1994 and expert

valuation)

A4

Ecological strategy type Valuation of characteristic

plant species by means of Grimes triangle-model (Grime
et al. 1988)

A5

Ecological viability/ state of preservation (of Natura 2000

habitats)

Forest ecosystem vulnerability

to climate change

Figure 4: Indicators of exposure change, sensitivity and adaptive capacity that compose the forest ecosystem vulnerability index.

Outlook

Literature cited

The index can be applied on different scales, depending on the available data. A next step will include
the distinction between the generalised vulnerability of a generic forest type, and realised vulnerability
of a concrete forest of that type in its particular location, where specific abiotic and biotic conditions
influence the systems sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Due to its lean structure, the index can easily
incorporate new knowledge or be developed further. It is open to being adapted to different sets of
forest ecosystems in other regions. The general framework of the vulnerability index can equally serve
for the development of indices for other ecosystem groups such as wetlands or grasslands.
Contact

Prof. Pierre Ibisch, Email: pibisch@hnee.de;

Jantje Blatt, Email: jblatt@hnee.de

Badeck, F.-W., Lasch, P., Hauf, Y., Rock, J., Suckow, F., Thonicke, K. (2004): Steigendes klimatisches Waldbrandrisiko. AFZ Der
Wald 2/2004: 90-93
Geyer, J., Kiefer, I., Kreft, S., Chavez, V., Jeltsch, F., Salafsky, N., Ibisch P.L. (in press): Classification of climate change-induced
stresses of biological diversity. Conservation Biology.
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G., Hunt, R. (1988): Comparative plant ecology. Verlag Unwin Hyman; London, 742 S
Klling, C. (2007): Klimahllen fr 27 Waldbaumarten. AFZ Der Wald 23/2007: 1242-1245
Konopatzky, A. (1998): Kennzeichnung der substratbedingten Feuchte von grundwasserfernen Sandstandorten mit Hilfe der
Standortskartierung und ihre Anwendung. Unverffentlicht.
Linke, C., Grimmert, S., Hartmann, I., Reinhardt, K. (2010): Auswertung regionaler Klimamodelle fr das Land Brandenburg
Darstellung klimatologischer Parameter mit Hilfe vier regionaler Klimamodelle (CLM, REMO10, WettReg, STAR2) fr das 21.
Jahrhundert. (Fachbeitrge des Landesumweltamtes des Landes Brandenburg; 113); Potsdam: 305 S.
Otto, H.-J. (1994): Waldkologie. Verlag Eugen Ulmer; Stuttgart, 391 S.
Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, J.P., Hanson, P.E. (eds) (2007): Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, UK/USA.
Polsky, C., Schrter, D., Patt, A., Gaffin, S., Martello, M.L., Neff, R., Pulsipher, A., Selin, H. (2003): Assessing vulnerabilities to the
effects of global change: An Eight-Step Approach. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University,
John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Roloff, A.; Grundmann, B. (2008): Klimawandel und Baumarten-Verwendung fr Waldkosysteme. Forschungsstudie, TU Dresden.