Stand density and drought interaction on water relations of Nothofagus antarctica: contribution of forest management to climate change adaptability

Gyenge, J., et al., 2011. Trees - Structure and Function

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Nothofagus antarctica is the most representative species of the native mixed forest occupying ecotone areas between forests and steppe in NW Patagonia, South-America. In this type of environment, vulnerability to climate change is particularly enhanced. Predictions of future climatic conditions for this region indicate an increment of atmospheric temperature and also, a high variability of rain events, threatening forest persistence and productivity. In this framework, management strategies are crucial to guarantee sustainability of native vegetation systems. The objective of this study was to study the effect of tree density on the ecophysiological limitations of water use of N. antarctica, as a proxy to its productivity, during a drought period. Compared with the unthinned forest, the thinned forest showed higher soil water availability, higher sapflow density (Js) and canopy conductance (Gc) values, similar aerodynamic conductance (Ga) and a low degree of coupling to vapor pressure deficit. Ecophysiological results demonstrated a high limitation over gas exchange of individual N. antarctica trees imposed by the resistance in the hydraulic soil-to-leaf pathway in the unthinned-natural condition. Surprisingly, our results suggest structural limitations in the unthinned stand which reduce the ability of N. antarctica trees to take advantage of wet seasons, at least in the short term. Thinning could decrease the susceptibility of N. antarctica-based systems to drought stress, by increasing resource availability to the remaining trees, thus contributing to enhance the persistence of this species under climate change conditions.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-149-1
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    thinning treatment consisted of the extraction of all woody species except N. antarctica trees. During winter 2004, re-sprouted trees and shrubs were cut. At the beginning of the present study, this mono-specific savanna- like forest of N. antarctica had a density of 1,027 tree- s ha-1.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Loss of timber production  Positive ecophysiological limitations of water use of N. antarctica, as a proxy to its productivity: sapflow density (Js) and canopy conductance (Gc) values, aerodynamic conductance (Ga), degree of coupling to vapor pressure deficit
    Reduced water availability  Positive Soil water availability/content (% dry weight) during summer
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    El Foyel River Valley (41°390 54.300 S; 71°330 11.400 W, 632 m.o.s.l.), N.W. carried out measurements within two sites: Montero (unthinned) and Soriani (thinned)

  • Country: Argentina
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate forests |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness compared to unthinned (control) plot "Surprisingly, our results suggest structural lim- itations in the unthinned stand which reduce the ability of N. antarctica trees to take advantage of wet seasons, at least in the short term. Thinning could decrease the susceptibility of N. antarctica-based systems to drought stress, by increasing resource availability to the remaining trees, thus contributing to enhance the persistence of this species under climate change conditions."
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic: