Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34853712›Full record

ArticleEcosphere (Washington, D.C)2019

Tree mortality submodels drive simulated long-term forest dynamics: assessing 15 models from the stand to global scale.

Harald Bugmann, Rupert Seidl, Florian Hartig, Friedrich Bohn, Josef Brůna, Maxime Cailleret, Louis François, Jens Heinke, Alexandra-Jane Henrot, Thomas Hickler and 22 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecosphere (Washington, D.C), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Stand-scale climate change impacts on forests over large areas: transient responses and projection uncertainties.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Simulating forest resilience: A review.Global ecology and biogeography : a journal of macroecology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors at 19 institutions in 10 countries.

Harald BugmannForest Ecology ETH Zürich Universitätstrasse 22 8092 Zürich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4233-0094
Rupert SeidlUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU) Vienna Peter Jordan Straße 82 1190 Wien Austria.
Florian HartigTheoretical Ecology University of Regensburg Universitätsstraße 31 93053 Regensburg Germany.
Friedrich BohnHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Leipzig Germany.
Josef BrůnaInstitute of Botany The Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic.
Maxime CailleretForest Ecology ETH Zürich Universitätstrasse 22 8092 Zürich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6561-1943
Louis FrançoisUnit for Modelling of Climate and Biogeochemical Cycles UR SPHERES University of Liège Liège Belgium.
Jens HeinkeMember of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam Germany.
Alexandra-Jane HenrotUnit for Modelling of Climate and Biogeochemical Cycles UR SPHERES University of Liège Liège Belgium.
Thomas HicklerSenckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre BiK-F Frankfurt/Main Germany.
Lisa HülsmannTheoretical Ecology University of Regensburg Universitätsstraße 31 93053 Regensburg Germany.
Andreas HuthHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Leipzig Germany.
Ingrid JacqueminUnit for Modelling of Climate and Biogeochemical Cycles UR SPHERES University of Liège Liège Belgium.
Chris KollasMember of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam Germany.
Petra Lasch-BornMember of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam Germany.
Manfred J LexerUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU) Vienna Peter Jordan Straße 82 1190 Wien Austria.
Ján MerganičFaculty of Forestry Technical University in Zvolen T.G. Masaryka 24 Zvolen 96053 Slovakia.
Katarína MerganičováFaculty of Forestry Technical University in Zvolen T.G. Masaryka 24 Zvolen 96053 Slovakia.
Tobias MetteSoil and Climate Department Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (LWF) 85354 Freising Germany.
Brian R MirandaUSDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station Rhinelander Wisconsin USA.
Daniel Nadal-SalaDepartment de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals Universitat de Barcelona Av. Diagonal 643 08028 Barcelona Spain.
Werner RammerUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU) Vienna Peter Jordan Straße 82 1190 Wien Austria.
Anja RammigMember of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam Germany.
Björn ReinekingIrstea, LESSEM Univ. Grenoble Alpes 38000 Grenoble France.
Edna RoedigHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Leipzig Germany.
Santi SabatéDepartment de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals Universitat de Barcelona Av. Diagonal 643 08028 Barcelona Spain.
Jörg SteinkampSenckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre BiK-F Frankfurt/Main Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7861-8789
Felicitas SuckowMember of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam Germany.
Giorgio VacchianoUniversità degli Studi di Milano, DISAA 20123 Milano Italy.
Jan WildInstitute of Botany The Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic.
Chonggang XuLos Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos New Mexico 87544 USA.
Christopher P O ReyerMember of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Potsdam Germany.
Leibniz Association · DEBOKU University · ATUniversity of Liège · BECzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany · CZHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research · DESwiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research · CHTechnická univerzita vo Zvolene · SKBavarian State Research Center for Agriculture · DECentre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications · ESETH Zurich · CHGoethe University Frankfurt · DEInstitut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire de Grenoble · FRKarlsruhe Institute of Technology · DELos Alamos National Laboratory · USNorthern Research Station · USSenckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre · DEUniversitat de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Regensburg · DE

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF Y 895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models are pivotal for assessing future forest dynamics under the impacts of changing climate and management practices, incorporating representations of tree growth, mortality, and regeneration. Quantitative studies on the importance of mortality submodels are scarce. We evaluated 15 dynamic vegetation models (DVMs) regarding their sensitivity to different formulations of tree mortality under different degrees of climate change. The set of models comprised eight DVMs at the stand scale, three at the landscape scale, and four typically applied at the continental to global scale. Some incorporate empirically derived mortality models, and others are based on experimental data, whereas still others are based on theoretical reasoning. Each DVM was run with at least two alternative mortality submodels. Model behavior was evaluated against empirical time series data, and then, the models were subjected to different scenarios of climate change. Most DVMs matched empirical data quite well, irrespective of the mortality submodel that was used. However, mortality submodels that performed in a very similar manner against past data often led to sharply different trajectories of forest dynamics under future climate change. Most DVMs featured high sensitivity to the mortality submodel, with deviations of basal area and stem numbers on the order of 10-40% per century under current climate and 20-170% under climate change. The sensitivity of a given DVM to scenarios of climate change, however, was typically lower by a factor of two to three. We conclude that (1) mortality is one of the most uncertain processes when it comes to assessing forest response to climate change, and (2) more data and a better process understanding of tree mortality are needed to improve the robustness of simulated future forest dynamics. Our study highlights that comparing several alternative mortality formulations in DVMs provides valuable insights into the effects of process uncertainties on simulated future forest dynamics.

Indexed as

climate change impactsforest dynamicsmodel comparisonmortality modelingsuccession

Identifiers

PMID34853712
PMCPMC8609442
OpenAlexW2917072448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.