- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
For the
People frequently say “green” to mean “environmentally
friendly.” But encroaching conifer forests — really big greens — threaten to
further spike the far North’s already low-grade fever.
Temperatures in the high
The newest data on the advance of northern, or boreal,
forests come from the eastern slopes of
Conifers here now reside where no living tree has grown
in some 1,000 years, points out one of the authors, ecologist Frank Hagedorn of
the Swiss Federal Institute for
Ecologists and climatologists are
concerned because emerging forest data suggest that the albedo, or
reflectivity, of large regions across the
Sea-surface ice already is melting in the
“Effects of vegetative changes will be felt first and
most strongly locally — in the
Posturing
Tree rings from the Arctic Urals show that since the
15th century, many Siberian larch (Larix
sibirica Ledeb.) — the primary tree species — have grown in a stunted,
shrubby form, sporting multiple spindly trunks. This adaptation to harsh
conditions helps the trees weather wind and snow. But the trees invest so many
calories in making multistemmed clusters, Hagedorn says, that they end up puny
and unable to make seeds. This infertility has thwarted the stand’s spread.
After about 1900, these larches began to switch from
their creeping, multistemmed form to tall trees with a more upright posture,
though sometimes with up to 20 stems, Hagedorn and his Russian and Swiss
collaborators report. Over time, new trees emerged with a single, upright
trunk, at the same time bulking up with more biomass than shrubby, same-age
kin. Overall, 70 percent of upright larches have emerged in just the past 80
years. Since 1950, 90 percent of local upright larches have been
single-stemmed.
This forest advance into former tundra coincided with a
nearly 1 degree Celsius increase in summer temperature and a doubling of winter
precipitation.
“That’s a good cocktail for growth,” says arctic plant
ecologist Serge Payette of Laval University in
Spruce are
This process can create the “mirage” of tree line
advance, he says. In fact, the trees may not move at all; in-place populations
may simply recover from chronic stress and resume growth until they reach their
normal height and mass.
Ecologist Andrea Lloyd of
But that’s only part of the story,
she finds. Even where stands are advancing, “if you look at individual trees,
some are starting to decline.” They’re growing increasingly slowly. Sometimes,
as growth slows, tree numbers within a stand may be increasing. “It’s a
paradox,” she acknowledges.
Forest ecologist Glenn Juday of Alaska-Fairbanks and his student Martin
Wilmking have recorded similarly perplexing data from tree rings in 2,600 trees
along two mountain ranges in polar
Too little water seems a bigger factor affecting tree
growth than temperature, although warming can foster drought, Juday
acknowledges. Indeed, as the
But their loss isn’t likely to compensate for the tundra
lost to trees, at least in Arctic-warming potential. In fact, their loss could
further perturb the global climate because boreal forests currently hold huge
amounts of carbon that had been emitted as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Until they decompose, they darken the land and remain solar collectors. Once
they rot, their carbon will enrich already high atmospheric CO2
levels.
Shrubs and
microbes
The threat of tundra displacement
by trees has largely escaped notice, Juday says. And indeed, boreal forest
advances in
Except when those mats have been disturbed. A dry summer
and warm September last year allowed a fire to ignite 100,000 hectares (about
250,000 acres) of Alaskan tundra. The huge footprint of disturbed land is now
ripe for growing seeds. Fortunately, Juday says, boreal forests are on the
other side of a mountain range from this scarred landscape.
Throughout the past half-century, a far more pervasive
disturbance — what ecologists have taken to calling shrubbification — has been
subtly transforming the tundra landscape. It starts with the arrival of tiny
shrubs, such as spreading willows perhaps only 7.5 centimeters (about 3 inches)
high, explains ecologist Ken Tape, also at Alaska-Fairbanks. He compared repeat
photographs of Arctic tundra scapes taken around 1950 and again a few years
back.
His calculations indicated that for
the sites he studied, “there’s been something like a 39 percent increase in
shrub cover.” It’s consistent with data from satellite monitoring of
As these willows and other shrubs
start moving in, they trap snow, which begins to insulate — and warm — the soil
at their feet, explains Andy Bunn, an environmental scientist at Western
Washington University in Bellingham. The warming will rouse sleeping bacteria
in the soil, which will then begin to feed. In the process, they’ll begin to
spew much of the carbon that had been locked up in the formerly frozen soil.
This fertilizes the shrubs, fostering the whole warming-growth cycle.
“There’s what people call a big
Arctic carbon bomb” waiting to go off, Bunn says. Up to 200 petagrams — that’s 200 trillion kilograms — are stored in the
top meter of Arctic tundra. For comparison, the atmosphere already has 730
petagrams of carbon in it, he adds. If shrub-related warming releases much of
this carbon, it could undermine much of the carbon-limiting measures people are
contemplating to slow global warming, he notes.
Although trees soak up carbon,
boreal trees grow so slowly they’ll likely never keep up with what the soil
warming will spew, Bunn says. But forests could exacerbate the problem by
darkening the still fairly light-colored shrubby landscape.
Found in: Botany, Climate Change, Ecology, Environment and Science & Society
- Report: Impacts of a Warming Arctic, link
- Juday, G.P., et al. 2004. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Scientific Report Chapter 14: Forests, Land Management, and Agriculture. An ACIA Policy Document (Nov. 24; pp. 781-862). Available at: link.
- Chapin, FS III, et al. 2005. Role of land-surface changes in arctic summer warming. Science 310(Sept. 22):657. DOI: 10.1126/science.1117368
- Devi, N., R. Hagedorn, et al. In press. Expanding forests and changing growth forms of Siberian larch at the polar urals treeline during the 20th Century. Global Change Biology. 14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01583.x
- Lloyd, A.H., and A.G. Bunn. 2007. Responses of the bircumpolar boreal forest to 20th Century climate variability. Environmental Research Letters 2(October-December). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045013
- Wilmking, M. . . . and G.P. Juday. 2005. Increased temperature sensitivity and divergent growth trends in circumpolar boreal forests. Geophysical Research Letters 32(April):L15715.
doi:10.1029/2005GL023331. - Wilmking, M., and G.P. Juday. 2005. Longitudinal variation of radial growth at Alaska’s northern treeline – recent changes and possible scenarios for the 21st Century. Global and Planetary Change 47(July): 282-300. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2004.10.017.
- Wilmking, M., G.P. Juday, et al. 2004. Recent climate warming forces contrasting growth responses of white spruce at treeline in Alaska through temperature thresholds. Global Change Biology 10(October):1724. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00826.x
- Zimov, S.A., E.A.G. Schuur, and F.S. Chapin III. 2006. Permafrost and the global carbon budget. Science 312(June 16):1612. DOI: 10.1126/science.1128908

First, this may help explain the increased CO2 _after_ cliamte warming that has been reported in ice cores.
Second, this may be a confounding influence on scaling the CO2 feedback used in Global Climate Models. If I understand it correctly, models take the effect of just CO2 increase and multiply that by a constant to include the impact of increased water vapor, another greenhouse gas. If models don't take into account this forest effect into account, well, add it to the list of needed improvements.