Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling potential climate change impacts on the trees of the northeastern United States

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluated 134 tree species from the eastern United States for potential response to several scenarios of climate change, and summarized those responses for nine northeastern United States. We modeled and mapped each species individually and show current and potential future distributions for two emission scenarios (A1fi [higher emission] and B1 [lower emission]) and three climate models: the Parallel Climate, the Hadley CM3, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory model. Climate change could have large impacts on suitable habitat for tree species in this region, especially under a high emissions trajectory. Results indicate that while species with potentially increasing areas of suitable habitat in the Northeastern US substantially outnumber those with decreasing areas of habitat, there are key species that show diminishing habitat area: balsam fir (Abies balsamea), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), red spruce (Picea rubens), bigtooth and quaking aspen (Populus grandidentata and P. tremuloides), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). From these results we identified the top 10 losers and gainers for each US state in the region by scenario and emissions trajectory. By combining individual species importance maps and developing assembly rules for various classes, we created maps of potential forest types for the Northeast showing a general loss of the spruce–fir zone with advancing oak–hickory type. Further data, maps, and analysis can be found at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayers MP, Lombardero MJ (2000) Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Sci Total Environ 262:263–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron E (2001) Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the northeastern United States. In: National Assessment Synthesis Team (ed) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Foundation Report. US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC

  • Box EO, Crumpacker DW, Hardin ED (1999) Predicted effects of climatic change on distribution of ecologically important native tree and shrub species in Florida. Clim Change 41:213–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24:123–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel Y, Flather CH (2006) Constrained range expansion and climate change assessments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:178–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MB, Zabinski C (1992) Changes in geographical range resulting from greenhouse warming: effects on biodiversity in forests. In: Peters RL, Lovejoy TE (eds) Global warming and biological diversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • DeHayes DH, Jacobson GL, Schaber PG, Bongarten B, Iverson LR, Dieffenbacker-Krall A (2000) Forest responses to changing climate: lessons from the past and uncertainty for the future. In: Mickler RA, Birdsey RA, Hom JL (eds) Responses of northern forests to environmental change. Springer, Ecological Studies Series, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter AH, Fitter RSR (2002) Rapid changes in flower time of British flowering plants. Science 296:1689–1691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster D, Aber J (2004) Forests in time. Yale University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen-Zanker A, Engelen G, Hurkens J, Vanhout R, Uljee I (2006) Map comparison kit 3. User manual. Research Institute for Knowledge Systems, Maastricht, The Netherlands

  • Hansen AJ, Neilson RP, Dale VH, Flather CH, Iverson LR, Currie DJ, Shafer S, Cook R, Bartlein PJ (2001) Global change in forests: responses of species, communities, and biomes. Bioscience 51(9):765–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayhoe K, Wake CP, Huntington TG, Luo L, Schwartz MD, Sheffield J, Wood EF, Anderson B, Bradbury J, DeGaetano A, Troy T, Wolfe D (2006) Past and future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the U.S. Northeast. Clim Dyn 28:381–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibanez I, Clark JS, Dietze MC, Felley K, Hersh M, LaDeau S, McBride A, Welch NE, Wolosin MS (2006) Predicting biodiversity change: outside the climate envelope, beyond the species–area curve. Ecology 87:1896–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Prasad AM (1998) Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecol Monogr 68:465–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Hale BJ, Sutherland EK (1999) An atlas of current and potential future distributions of common trees of the eastern United States. General Technical Report NE-265, Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA

  • Iverson L R, Prasad AM, Liaw A (2004a) New machine learning tools for predictive vegetation mapping after climate change: bagging and Random Forest perform better than regression tree analysis. In: Smithers R (ed) Proceedings, UK-International Association for Landscape Ecology, Cirencester, UK

  • Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Hutchinson TF, Rebbeck J, Yaussy D (2004b) Fire and thinning in an Ohio oak forest: grid-point analysis of fire behavior, environmental conditions, and tree regeneration across a topographic moisture gradient. In: Proceedings, Upland Oak Symposium, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Starkville, MS

  • Iverson LR, Schwartz MW, Prasad A (2004c) How fast and far might tree species migrate under climate change in the eastern United States?. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:209–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson LR, Prasad A, Bossenbroek J, Sydnor D, Schwartz MW (2007) Modeling potential movements of an ash threat: the emerald ash borer. In: Pye J, Raucher M (eds) Advances in threat assessment and their application to forest and rangeland management. Available at: http://www.threats.forestencyclopedia.net. Cited 16 April 2007

  • Joyce LA, Birdsey R (tech eds) (2000) The impact of climate change on America’s forests: a technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. General Technical Report 59, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO

  • Kirilenko AP, Belotelov NV, and Bogatyrev BG (2000) Global model of vegetation migration: incorporation of climatic variability. Ecol Model 132:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschbaum MF (2000) Forest growth and species distribution in a changing climate. Tree Physiol 20:309–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Little EL (1971) Atlas of United States trees. Volume 1. Conifers and important hardwoods. Miscellaneous Publication 1146, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC

  • Little EL (1977) Atlas of United States Trees. Volume 4. Minor Eastern Hardwoods. Miscellaneous Publication 1342, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, US

  • Loftis DL, McGee CE (eds) (1993) Oak regeneration: serious problems, practical recommendations. General Technical Report SE-84, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC, US

  • Lovejoy TE, and Hannah L (2005) Climate change and biodiversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Kenney DW, Hutchenson MF, Kesteven JL, Venier LA (2001) Canada’s plant hardiness zones revisited using modern climate interpolation techniques. Can J Plant Sci 81:129–143

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie D, Gedolof ZE, Peterson DL, Mote P (2004) Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conserv Biol 18:890–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melillo JM, Callaghan TV, Woodward FI, Salati E, Sinha SK (1990) Effects on ecosystems. In: Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) Climate Change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles PD, Brand GJ, Alerich CLBLR, Woudenberg SW, Glover JF, Ezzell EN (2001) The forest inventory and analysis database: database description and users manual version 1.0. General Technical Report NC-218, North Central Research Station, USDA Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, US

  • Nakićenović N et al (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Synthesis Team (2001) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change. Foundation report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Niinemets U, Valladares F (2006) Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate Northern Hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecol Monogr 76:521–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paradis A, Elkinton J, Hayhoe K (2007) Effect of winter temperatures on the survival of hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, and the potential impact of global warming on its future range in eastern North America. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang (this issue)

  • Parmesan C, Galbraith H (2004) Observed impacts of climate change in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA

  • Poland TM, McCullough DG (2006) Emerald ash borer: invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J For 104(April/May):118–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad AM, Iverson LR (1999) A climate change atlas for 80 forest tree species of the eastern United States. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/atlas. Cited 16 April 2007

  • Prasad A, Iverson LR, Liaw A (2006) Newer classification and regression tree techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological prediction. Ecosystems 9:181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, Wickham JD, O’Neill RV, Jones KB, Smith ER, Coulston JW, Wade TG, Smith JH (2002) Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 5:815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW, Iverson LR, Prasad AM, Matthews SN, O’Connor RJ (2006) Predicting extinctions as result of climate change. Ecology 87(7):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soja AJ, Tchebakova NM, French NHF, Flannigan MD, Shugart HH Stocks BJ, Sukinin AI, Parfenova EE, Chapin FS, Sackhouse PW (2006) Climate-induced boreal forest change: predictions versus current observations. Glob Planet Change 56 (in press)

  • Sutherland EK, Hutchinson TF (eds) (2003) Characteristics of mixed-oak forests in Ohio. General Technical Report NE-299, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA

  • Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Sykes MT, Araujo MB (2006) Using niche-based modelling to assess the impact of climate change on tree functional diversity in Europe. Divers Distrib 12:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb T III, Bartlein PJ (1992) Global changes during the last 3 million years: climatic controls and biotic responses. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23:141–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weltzin JF, Belote RT, Sanders JJ (2003) Biological invaders in a greenhouse world: will elevated CO2 fuel plant invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:146–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson M (1999) Invasions. Ecography 22:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RJ, Thomas CD, Fox R, Roy DB, Kunin WE (2004) Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change. Nature 432:393–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates DN, Kittel TGF, Cannon RF (2000) Comparing the correlative Holdridge model to mechanistic biogeographical models for assessing vegetation distribution response to climatic change. Clim Change 44:59–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the Northern Global Change Program, US Forest Service for the financial support over several years, and to the Forest Inventory and Analysis units of the US Forest Service for the forest data. The authors thank Matthew Peters for the substantial assistance in preparing the data in this paper, Katharine Hayhoe for providing the climate-scenario data, and Erika Spanger-Siegfried and the Union of Concerned Scientists synthesis team for the helpful comments on improving the manuscript. Special thanks are due to Jerry Mellilo, David Foster, Linda Joyce, and an unidentified reviewer for their helpful suggestions, and to Marty Jones, Tom Lambert, Cameron Wake, and Mary Boda for the final edits.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 359 Main Road, Delaware, OH, 43015, USA

    Louis Iverson, Anantha Prasad & Stephen Matthews

Authors
  1. Louis Iverson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anantha Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis Iverson.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 Model reliability assessment scores, percentage of range in the eastern United States, and the top two variables defining the model. Mod Rel > 0.5 green (good reliability), Mod Rel 0.3–0.5 amber (medium), Mod Rel  < 0.3 red (poor)
Full size table
Table 9 Percent occupancy of suitable habitat in the northeastern USA for 134 species under current (actual and modeled) and 4 potential future scenarios
Full size table
Table 10 Weighted-area importance value scores and their potential gains or losses under four scenarios of climate change. Ratios pertain to future: current ratios
Full size table
Table 11 Species in New Hampshire with the potential for substantial (top 10) losses (in italics) or gains (in bold) in suitable habitat based on absolute area-weighted importance values differences expressed as percentages except those numbers followed by the letter ‘a’ indicate actual area-weighted importance values, since the initial value was zero
Full size table
Table 12 Species in Vermont with the potential for substantial (top 10) losses (in italics) or gains (in bold) in suitable habitat based on absolute area-weighted importance values; differences expressed as percentages
Full size table
Table 13 Species in Connecticut with the potential for substantial (top 10) losses (in italics) or gains (in bold) in suitable habitat based on absolute area-weighted importance values; differences are expressed as percentages except those numbers followed by the letter ‘a’ indicate actual area-weighted importance values, since the initial value was zero
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iverson, L., Prasad, A. & Matthews, S. Modeling potential climate change impacts on the trees of the northeastern United States. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 13, 487–516 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9129-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9129-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation