7/26/2019 A methodological approach for an index-based analysis for Brandenburg (northeastern Germany)

1/1

Legend

http://www.moskau.diplo.de/Vertretung/moskau/de/01/Informationen/Deutschlandkarte.gif

Boarderof federal

state

Berlin

Forestarea

I M P A C T

Introduction

Jantje Blatt, Bjrn Ellner, Stefan Kreft, Lena Strixner, Vera Luthardt, Pierre IbischEberswalde University for Sustainable Development (University of Applied Sciences), Germany

Literature citedBadeck, F.-W., Lasch, P., Hauf, Y., Rock, J., Suckow, F., Thonicke, K. (2004): Steigendes klimatisches Waldbrandrisiko. AFZ Der

Wald 2/2004: 90-93Geyer, 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 SKlling, C. (2007): Klimahllen fr 27 Waldbaumarten. AFZ Der Wald 23/2007: 1242-1245Konopatzky, A. (1998): Kennzeichnung der substratbedingten Feuchte von grundwasserfernen Sandstandorten mit Hilfe der

Standortskartierung und ihreAnwendung. 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

FourthAssessment 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.

How vulnerable are forest ecosystemsto climate change?

A methodological approach for an index-based analysis forBrandenburg (northeastern Germany)

Climate change is increasingly exposing conservation targets (e.g., ecosystems, species, ecological processes) to a diversity of stresses, both directly and in interaction withother 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-knowledgeconcerning the highly uncertain future dynamics of climate change. It may be also used in prioritization exercises in the context of climate change-adaptive management.

Figure1 : Forests in Brandenburg state, north-eastern Germany.

for the analysis of vulnerability,composed by exposurechange and correspondingsensitivity(= impact) as well as

adaptive capacity of forestecosystems(see Fig. 3). Within

each c riterion, semi-quantitative (proxy) indicatorsdef ine the corresponding

values. The indicators aredesigned to factor in all system-

relevant elements reflecting

1. the most important climatechange stressors for forest

ecosystems (water scarcity,biotic damage, fire risk, storm

calamity)

2. the relevant ecologicalprocesses that are affected by

such exposure change

(sensitivity factors)

3. those ecological functionsthat support adaptation

processes to altered climaticconditions (adaptive capacity

factors) (see Fig. 4).

Figure 3:. Conceptual framework of vulnerability (based on IPCC Fourth

Assessment Report, cf. Parry et al. 2007) and criteria of forest ecosystem

vulnerability against climate change (adopted from Polsky et al. 2003).

Exposure Sensitivity

Adaptive Capacity

direct

indirect

Change of averagetemperature andprecipitation

Changes of type,frequency, intensity ofabiotic extreme events

Structural diversity

Ecological strategytype of characteristicspecies

Potential for naturalregeneration

Changes of thehydrological regime

Changes of type,frequency, intensityof biotic (pest)disturbance regimes

Sensitivity againsttemperature andprecipitation changes

Sensitivity againstbiotic damages

Ecological viability

Sensitivity againstabiotic extreme events

Sensitivity againstchanges of thehydrological regime

Components ofVulnerability

Criteria

The vulnerability scores are assigned to five relative vulnerabilitycategories form slightly vulnerable to extremely vulnerable. Therelative vulnerability categories serve to compare the assessed

systems regarding their different vulnerability-levels to climatechange. We point out it is difficult to determine absolutevulnerabilities due to the complexity of ecological processes anduncertainty of climate change factors that influence the systems

resilience and capacity to adapt.The scores are graded logarithmically in order to achieve a more

appropriate and balanced weighting of impact and adaptive capacityfactors.

Additionally, we integrated two ecological threshold valuesthatcome into play, when one (two) high exposure factor(s)correspond(s) with one (two) highly rated sensitivity factor(s). We

assume, that in this case the ecosystem type will react vulnerable

against climate change, independent from the other indicator ratingsand calculated vulnerability scores. In such a case the ecosystemwill be ranked in the second highest (highest) vulnerability class.

A

IV

Z

n

i

n

i

IiIiDiDi

I

SESE

I 1 1

)*()*(

Z

n

i

i

A

A

1

ED/ SD = Indicators of direct exposure and corresponding sensitivity.EI/ S I = Indicators of indirect exposure and corresponding sensitivity.

OutlookThe index can be applied on different scales, depending on the available data. A next step will includethe distinction between the generalised vulnerabilityof a generic forest type, and realised vulnerabilityof a concrete forest of that type in its particular location, where specific abiotic and biotic conditionsinfluence thesystemssensitivity and adaptive capacity. Due to itslean structure,the index can easily

incorporate new knowledge or be developed further. It is open to being adapted to different sets offorest 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.

Methodological Approach

Ed1Projected 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)

Ei1Projected change of max. windspeed, period 2031-2060 (reference

1961-90), Star 2 modell (PIK)

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)

Ei3Change of frequency and intensity of biotic damages expert

valuation

Sd1

Sensitivity against change of average temperature

Valuation by means of bioclimatic envelopes (Klling 2007,

adopted)

Sd2

Sensitivity against change of hydrological regime

Valuation by means of Climate-Species-Matrix (KLAM)

(Roloff und Grundmann 2008, adopted)

Si1Sensitivity against change of max. windspeed Valuation

by means of Rottmann (1986, adopted)

Si2Sensitivity against change of fire risk Valuation by means

of Resistance against forest fires (Otto 1994)

Si3Sensitivity against change of frequency and intensity of biotic

damages expert valuation

Nr Indicators of exposure change Nr Indicators of sensitivity A1 Ecosystem architecture

A2 Species diversityof treespecies

A3Potential for natural regeneration (Otto 1994 and expert

valuation)

A4

Ecologicalstrategytype Valuation of characteristic

plant species by meansof Grimes triangle-model (Grime

et al. 1988)

A5Ecologicalviability/ state of preservation (of Natura 2000

habitats)

Nr Indicators of adaptive capacity

Based on a literature review of vulnerability assessments,a sound classification of stresses for ecosystems

caused by global climate change (Geyer et

al. in press) and the participation of externalexperts, we identified relevant criteria

The indicators build upon valid (empirical) data from literature and expert valuation. They are

scored on a scale from 1 (very low impact/ adaptive capacity) to 5 (very high). To calculatean overall vulnerability score (V), the index combines all information on

exposure and corresponding sensitivity (I) as well as adaptive capacity (A)

in the following algorithm:

IMPACT

Contact Prof. Pierre Ibisch, Email: pibisch@hnee.de; Jantje Blatt, Email:jblatt@hnee.de

Forest ecosystem vulnerabilityto climate change

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

Pine-Plantation after fire. (Picture by V. Luthardt)Lowland beech forest. (Picture by V. Luthardt) Drought impact on beech treelet.(Picture by P. Ibisch)

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

mailto:pibisch@hnee.demailto:jblatt@hnee.demailto:jblatt@hnee.demailto:pibisch@hnee.de