From the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies where if you can get past the headline, this is notable: “We found that global climate models omit factors critical to understanding forest response, such as hydrology, soil conditions, and plant-animal interactions.” Point though: one experimental tree forest does not a GCM factor make.
Maple syrup, moose, and the local impacts of climate change
Understanding warming requires long term studies that account for real-life complexity
Millbrook, N.Y. — In the northern hardwood forest, climate change is poised to reduce the viability of the maple syrup industry, spread wildlife diseases and tree pests, and change timber resources. And, according to a new BioScience paper just released by twenty-one scientists, without long-term studies at the local scale—we will be ill-prepared to predict and manage these effects.
Following an exhaustive review of more than fifty years of long term data on environmental conditions at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, located in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the paper’s authors arrived at a sobering conclusion: current climate change models don’t account for real life surprises that take place in forests.
Lead author Dr. Peter Groffman, a microbial ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, comments, “Climate change plays out on a stage that is influenced by land-use patterns and ecosystem dynamics. We found that global climate models omit factors critical to understanding forest response, such as hydrology, soil conditions, and plant-animal interactions.”
One thing is clear: at Hubbard Brook Forest spring is advancing and fall is retreating. Over the past half century, the climate has warmed and there has been a rise in rainfall and a decrease in snowfall. Winters are getting shorter and milder, with snowpack melting some two weeks earlier. But soil thaw is no longer tightly coupled with spring plant growth, creating a transitional period that results in the loss of important soil nutrients.
In the absence of insulating snow pack, exposed soils are more susceptible to freezing, which damages tree roots. Sugar maples are suffering a one-two punch: soil frost is linked to tree mortality and warmer winters reduce sap yield. Mild winters are also encouraging the spread of pests and pathogens, including the destructive hemlock woolly adelgid—which was once held in check by cold winter temperatures.
As snow depth decreases, deer are better able to forage in the forest. Their browsing damages young trees and spreads a parasite that is lethal to moose. Reduced snow pack is also a challenge for logging operations, which use snow-packed roads to move trees, and ski resorts, which already rely heavily on manmade snow.
Groffman concludes, “Managing the forests of the future will require moving beyond climate models based on temperature and precipitation, and embracing coordinated long-term studies that account for real-world complexities.” Adding, “These studies can be scaled up, to give a more accurate big picture of climate change challenges—while also providing more realistic approaches for tackling problems at the regional scale.”
Paper Title: Long-Term Integrated Studies Show Complex and Surprising Effects of Climate Change in the Northern Hardwood Forest
Authors: Peter M. Groffman, Lindsey E. Rustad, Pamela H. Templer, John L. Campbell, Lynn M. Christenson, Nina K. Lany, Anne M. Socci, Matthew A. Vadeboncoeur, Paul G. Schaberg, Geoffrey F. Wilson, Charles T. Driscoll, Timothy J. Fahey, Melany C. Fisk, Christine L. Goodale, Mark B. Green, Steven P. Hamburg, Chris E. Johnson, Myron J. Mitchell, Jennifer L. Morse, Linda H. Pardo, and Nicholas L. Rodenhouse
Bioscience paper: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/121116_indirect_effects_of_climate_change_could_alter_landscapes.html.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
does michael mann eat chocolate?
20 Nov: Daily Mail: Does eating chocolate make you clever? New research suggests it may help you win a Nobel prize, at least..
US research suggests the higher a country’s chocolate consumption, the more Nobel laureates it spawns
Researcher admits research is tongue-in-cheek, but maintains findings are scientifically sound
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2235932/Does-eating-chocolate-make-clever-New-research-suggests-help-win-Nobel-prize-.html
[June 2008] “Ohio’s maple syrup producers this year tapped into their largest harvest since 1959.”
[June 2011] “The 2011 yield was 0.309 gallons per tap, an 83 percent increase from last year and the highest yield per tap since this statistic was first measured in 2001.”
They do give a wink and nod to climate while failing to mention standards of living and the average age people died in the UK between 1800 and 1850 (part of the Little Ice age too). The average life expectancy in England in 1850 was 41 years. Today in the tropics (as per article) 64.4 years. Nothing to do with global warming.
The authors forgot to include a plea for grant money to do a followup study on the serious question of whether or not venison tastes better when infused with maple syrup. I also hope a sociologist connects to this study and looks at how global change causes a shortage of maple syrup which causes Mad Maple Syrup Syndrome in people – a potentially fatal problem if you short my pancakes of maple syrup.
Seriously, how long has mankind been doing forest management and these scientists are the best we have to offer to the practice? As I read this abstract, they essentially are saying we don’t know diddly about managing forests. Probably true, but not exactly encouraging. You have to love the doom and gloom crowd.
Old woman of the north says:
November 20, 2012 at 9:11 pm
“What happened to the maple trees in the winters of the 1880s? […]”
========================================================
Back then they were called ‘firewood’ not maple trees ;o)
So unregulate the hunting again.
So the viable range for sugar maple trees will move north and Canadians will take up the slack in maple syrup production.
one experimental tree a Hockey Stick makes…
In re complexity of reality, N. N. Taleb argues that reality is fractally complex, forever damning induction. It is amusing that this issue should again arise in weather forecasting that recognized the butterfly’s wing a while ago.
Winters are getting shorter and milder, with snowpack melting some two weeks earlier.
Where?
Well said Tim. I can’t help but notice reduced syrup production from the same orchard over a 45 year period of sugaring. It’s just one indicator that something is going on. I think natural climate change is a candidate but not human induced. The same trend could reverse its self in the next 40 years so I think models are as useful for this problem as they are for predicting stock prices. Past history is not an indicator of future performance.
Mike Jonas says:
November 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm
I hope all these dire predictions turn into delirious enthusiasm when it becomes apparent that the world is now cooling, not warming, and is likely to do so for a couple of decades or more. All the terrible predictions emanating from the prospect of global warming will disappear in a proverbial puff of smoke and we can all be relaxed and happy again.
Oh, wait, what were they saying back in the 70s the last time it was cooling?
__________________
They’re already out with their response…. “Oh, but warming will be so much worse after this natural cooling cycle ends”… decades of doing nothing while poisonous CO2 accumulates, you see.
It isn’t turtles, but rationalizations, all the way down.
Groffman concludes, “Managing the forests of the future will require moving beyond climate models based on temperature and precipitation, and embracing coordinated long-term studies that account for real-world complexities.” Adding, “These studies can be scaled up, to give a more accurate big picture of climate change challenges—while also providing more realistic approaches for tackling problems at the regional scale.”
The shorter Groffman: Hang Big Climate and their expensive, overrated computers cos we’re gunna need heaps of that taxpayer moolah around our neck of the woods where it’s really at.
The only parts of the world which experience unprecedented conditions upon further warming are the present warmest parts of the world. Everywhere else just experiences a shift to a new normal which is already prevalent today.
Here in the central Appalachians, sugar maples are aggressive competitors, spreading along valleys and even upslope into the oak forest. They tolerate shade and eventually crowd out other trees. They are advancing southeastward into previously all oak-hickory forests. To suggest there is some “problem” for sugar maples, climate-wise, is ridiculous — they’re thriving and expanding their range.
I had a Canadian teacher in primary school, I was 8 I am now 71, who told us all about collecting maple syrup as a child in Quebec where, I bet, it is colder than New Hampshire. So all those years ago and climate change has been in action over all that time still maples produce syrup.
As far as snow depth and browsing deer is concerned, having visited Yellowstone NP and seen browsing evidence 40ft+ up on fir trees I do not think that snow depth affects browsing deer or moose. If it did they would all migrate south before snow depth became a problem.
Well I would be more worried about the effect on the trees, of the barbaric mutilation of them,for their sap.
And all quite unnecessary. The midwest plains States can make all the high fructose corn syrup needed for everybody’s pancakes till the end of time; and a whole lot cheaper too.
Fifty years ago climate was perfect and unchanging.
And then some lady got some dude to eat an apple.
The end.
Interesting suggestion, but it all boils down to “We want on the warming money band wagon. We can make models with alarming disasters too.”.
Deer parasites released during lower snow fall depth kill moose… That’s a new one. Is it only parasites released during specific snow conditions? What about the other ten months?
When, not if, the climate eventually warms sufficiently for New England to have milder winters, then the peak maple sap productivity will move north. End of story. When, the New England climate cools sufficiently for New England to have truly harsh winters, maple sap production will move back to the mid-Atlantic.
It’s happened before and it will happen again.
Euell Gibbons proved, and many back country folks have known since pre-columbus times, is that many trees provide extra sap in the first flush of spring warmth. Perhaps these scientists should be researching what other trees could make up any difference if the maples provide less, (Euell like birch tree syrup). I’ve pruned grape vines at the wrong time of year and then worried they were going to bleed to death, sap literally ran as if from a leaky faucet.
Can someone point me to, give me a link, to an online tool that will allow me to see/create historical graphs of surface temperatures for particular locations?
Thanks,
This desperate campaign to blame absolutely everything that CAN go wrong on global warming, even before it DOES go wrong, is getting just plain tacky.
They seem surprised by the fact that nature has ways of adapting to changing climate, and that their precious GCM’s can’t account for those. Imagine how shocked they’d be at how fundamentally flawed their GCM’s really are.
@ur momisugly Doug: Is there more deer foraging damage because it was previously limited by snowpack, or just more deer period?
I think both factors could be at play. There is definitely a line (approximately 60cm) where snow depth can be very hard on deer, particularly if there is any crust. Moving gets too difficult resulting in low food intake and susceptibility to predators. Bad snow years can see a 50+% drop in population and decreased fawn viability. So, if 60cm+ snow depths used to occur for example 1 in 5 years, but due to a warming trend (whatever the cause) now only occur 1 in 10 years, that would significantly influence populations and therefore the damage they do to small trees used as food.
The Hubbard Brook ecosystem is one of the most measured anywhere in the world. Actual observations in detail for half a century make it a premiere example of good science. Snarky commentors should should accept that the changes are real and not digital speculations. We who live in the Northeast know winters are milder now compared to fifty years ago and the biosphere has responded to the change. It will respond again as we go into a probable cooling period. The point is that adequate forest management requires knowledge of the system dynamics that research sites like Hubbard Brook provide. Bashing a report because the dreaded word “models” appears in it is lame. C’mon fellow-skeptics, get a grip.
The closest town is Woodstock, NH. Can someone trend the temp data to see just how big a problem climate change really is in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest?
A visit to the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation website is informative:
http://hubbardbrookfoundation.org/
They explore ‘Carbon and Communties, Acid Rain, Mercury, and Nitrogen Pollution’.
In that part of the US, the NCDC graphs do show a consistent and long warming trend with no indication of an impending flip to cool. Most other parts of the US show recent cooling or no particular long trend.
So the specific concern for “New England Warming” (perhaps due to Gulf Stream shifts?) may be valid, but all attempts to connect it to some “Global” phenomenon are invalid. There simply isn’t any “Global” trend.