From the NIPCC report comes this study that suggests gloom and doom over pine forest growth suppression in the face of climate change is overwrought. The pine trees apparently have the tools within their genes to cope just fine.
Intraspecific Variation: Helping Species Survive Climate Change
Writing in Ecology and Evolution, Oney et al. (2013) note that species distribution modeling (SDM) is “an important tool to assess the impact of global environmental change.” However, they say that many species exhibit ecologically relevant intraspecific variation, but that “few studies have analyzed its relevance for species distribution modeling.” And, therefore, in an attempt to add to those few studies and enlarge upon their significance, the four researchers compared the results of three SDM techniques as applied to the highly variable lodgepole pine tree (Pinus contorta).
First, they employed a conventional approach called MaxEnt to model the tree as a single species, based on presence-absence observations. Second, they used MaxEnt to model each of the three most prevalent subspecies independently, after which they combined their projected distributions. And third, they used a universal growth transfer function (UTF) to incorporate intraspecific variation utilizing provenance trial tree growth data.
The end result of these various operations was that under future anticipated climatic conditions, the different projections of lodgepole pine habitat suitability significantly diverged. In particular, as they put it, “when the species’ intraspecific variability was acknowledged, the species was projected to better tolerate climatic change as related to suitable habitat without migration.”
In light of this finding, Oney et al. concluded that “models derived from within-species data produce different and better projections, and coincide with ecological theory,” leading them to also conclude that “intraspecific variation may buffer against adverse effects of climate change,” which ultimately implies that many climate-alarmist horror stories of various species extinctions occurring in response to projected global warming are likely enormously overstated, as in totally false.
Reference
Oney, B., Reineking, B., O’Neill, G. and Kreyling, J. 2013. Intraspecific variation buffers projected climate change impacts on Pinus contorta. Ecology and Evolution 3: 437-449.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586652/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I quit reading at the word ‘Modeling’. Are there any scientists left that actually make observations in real world, rather than relying on models?
Is it really a possibility that plants that have been around as these trees have might actually be able to adapt to climate change? Does this mean that there is also a possibility that animals, with their much shorter life cycles, could also adapt? Gee Whiz!!! Who would have ever guessed?
Also interesting is a report on lab and field studies of blue mussels in eutrophic conditions that concludes food is more important that CO2 in terms of shell health.
How Blue Mussels Tolerate Seawater of High CO2 Partial Pressure. Tastier than pine trees. Well, maybe not these mussels….
I THINK I’m one of just a few foresters who regularly follow WUWT, so I guess I should stop following and contribute on a subject on which I have a little bit of knowledge and experience.
Trees, at least in NA (Pinus contorta is a NA species) are long-lived, sedentary (they can’t run away from the slings and arrows of bugs, disease, and inclement weather), wind pollinated, outcrossing higher plants. Species ranges vary in size and extent (Pinus contorta has a very extensive range). Essentially all of our commercially important species have large continuous ranges, which enables tremendous genetic buffering against environmental insults.
Trees are known to have very large genomes, much bigger than humans. This makes sense of course, because trees live for decades and centuries, and must grow, thrive, and reproduce successfully in the face of everything that nature throws at them. This isn’t true for all species, and those that have more dissected and limited ranges have less genetic ability to compete. Thus, we find species forced into tougher environments (Pinus aristata, e.g.) where they essentially have no other competitors other than weather.
Finally, one more observation (for now…). How many out there are at all concerned about the extinction of spruce and fir on the Gulf Coast? At the height of the Wisconsin Glaciation, spruce and fir survived along the Gulf Coast of the US, an area now dominated by Pinus elliottii. Compare that restricted range to the continent wide distributions of spruce and fir today.
I’m not worried about trees ability to withstand changes in climate. They always have, and they always will until the sun flames out.
I get a bit nervous when I see a headline that includes the phrase “Helping Species Survive…” Sometime this “help” can have unintended consequences, especially with species that have survived for eons without any special help.
Save the Spruce and Fir!
Plant one today. Much better than playing with models
Another elementary school juvenile report getting some press.
Man’s influence by factors such as fire suppression would appear to have a far more significant impact than through emissions of CO₂
Species distribution modelling. Hey Bubbas of the Climate Collective, get off your fat keesters and do something real.
“…many species exhibit ecologically relevant intraspecific variation…” Why can’t they just say ‘adaptable’? Trees are adaptable. But we knew that already, didn’t we?
The planet’s climate has been changing for as long as there have been plants. Is it any wonder that plants have the ability to adapt to change?
But wait a minute, if AGW CC CD etc. forces the lodgepoles to go all contorta on us, how will the Indians put up their “historic” Tee pees and Lodges? The White Man strikes again!
@LKMiller
First, there may be more foresters here than you think. I am one and have a number of colleagues who read WUWT at least once a week, some daily – you are in good company.
I fully agree with your comments. Things may change, that’s what natural environments do, but the trees will be just fine.
I am curious if you have noticed any wholesale loss of plantations in your part of the world? We have had a couple occurrences in Ontario, but talking to some of the old-timers this is nothing new. Photo’s are paraded around as an indicator of the impending doom, but it seems to me this is more likely an indicator of inappropriate seed transfer and/or artificially narrowed genetic variability than climate change.
LKMiller (aka treegyn1) says: @ur momisugly August 29, 2013 at 5:50 am
…. Essentially all of our commercially important species have large continuous ranges, which enables tremendous genetic buffering against environmental insults.
Trees are known to have very large genomes, much bigger than humans. This makes sense of course, because trees live for decades and centuries, and must grow, thrive, and reproduce successfully in the face of everything that nature throws at them. This isn’t true for all species….
Finally, one more observation (for now…). How many out there are at all concerned about the extinction of spruce and fir on the Gulf Coast? At the height of the Wisconsin Glaciation, spruce and fir survived along the Gulf Coast of the US, an area now dominated by Pinus elliottii. Compare that restricted range to the continent wide distributions of spruce and fir today.
I’m not worried about trees ability to withstand changes in climate. They always have, and they always will until the sun flames out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A couple of comments. (First thanks for the info)
One of my big problems with GMO crops, aside from horizontal gene transfer ( second link ) is the lack of genetic diversity. This is not just in GMO but in a lot of other food species.
As far as trees, and other C3 plants are concern the lack of adequate CO2 is a heck of a lot more of a long term problem than CAGW. see Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
SAVE A TREE BURN COAL!
Biggest threat to trees..wind turbines without a doubt. On second thought it could be biomass
MJB says:
August 29, 2013 at 6:40 am
I’m in Oregon, and no, we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary with plantations.
BTW, I began my career in Ontario, working for the MNR in Timmins, 1980-83.
Just checked the Aug.1 blog on forest fires
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/01/michigan-state-claim-extreme-wildfires-likely-fueled-by-climate-change/
and will add a little:
1) Alaska has a near reciprocal relation to the Lower 48 in recent burned acreage history:
http://wildfiretoday.com/2010/12/10/2010-fewest-wildfire-acres-burned-since-1998/#more-11250
(compliments to Bill Gabbert)
2) Canadian fires have been decreasing in number and total acreage since 1989:
http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en_CA/nfdb/poly
3) The number of U.S. fires has steadily decreased while total acreage burn increased until 2006.
The graphs illustrate through data that in fact it is forest policy rather than climate change that have brought on bigger fires in recent decades, as the trend is not seen in wild northern forests.
–AGF
I may be wrong, but I got the impression that their modeling was a mathematical construct based on actual observations over time. Not a virtual construct based on input assumptions. If that’s the case, then the criticism of it being “only a model” isn’t valid.
I’ve got a District Ranger friend who often complains that the alleged “environmentalists” keep trying to tell her what “natural” is. In the latest episode, the Forest Service’s fuel reduction program might have just saved The Dalles, Or., water supply system close to the Columbia River, as well as some coveted big Ponderosa, from destruction by a fire there. The Forest Service cleared some surface and cut low branches off the low altitude Ponderosa which grow there. She says the fire slowed when it hit the reduced fuel area and the Ponderosa might have been spared. How utterly “unnatural” of them!
I wonder if their “MaxEnt” utilizes the Maximum Entropy Principle, first formalized by my statistics guru Edwin Thompson Jaynes. I enjoy his practical illustration of MaxEnt in the difference between Bayesian naive priors, subjective (p=0 or p=1) and objective (p=0.5). The proper objective naive prior maximizes entropy by not falsely claiming knowledge not in hand.
Trees are very resilient but cold is more deadly. About 9000 years ago trees reached the Arctic Ocean coastline and remained during the Holocene Optimum. As temperatures began to cool the trees retreated and are now several hundred kilometers further south.
HIking the high elevation in the Sierra Nevada you can see ancient tree remnants. A 1997 study in Sequoia National Park found that “Tree-line elevation was higher than at present throughout most of the last 3500 years.
In the Ural Mountains (which divides Asia from Europe), researchers found thousands of more than 500-year-old dead trees that grew before the LIA struck. In contrast, remnants of any new trees that could have sprouted during the LIA were almost entirely absent. However the ancient rootstocks often remain and allow trees to suddenly emerge whenever local conditions are mild enough to promote growth. For example the world’s oldest-known living tree, a Norway Spruce, was recently discovered in Sweden. Although the living 13-foot high trunk emerged relatively recently, it had sprouted from the same rootstock that has persisted for nearly 10,000 years. Scientists found four different “generations” of above-ground remains with ages that dated 375, 5660, 9000 and 9550 years old. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html
We assume that “species’ intraspecific variation” means that intrinsic genetic differences affect all organisms’ response to environmental changes in ways analogous to resisting a disease. Do tell!– so AGW’s blinkered ideologues have of a sudden discovered Mendelian genetics?
Now that “cold is warm” and vice versa, the Kevin Trenberths of this world have also posited Perpetual Motion: Rising/falling deep-ocean temperature differentials produce heat-energy from nothing in the Marianna’s Trench.
At what point does one call out these preposterous frauds, re-directing their Big Government rent monies to profound socio-cultural exegeses of Gen-Y twerking skills?
Eco worriers should stop worrying. A retreating glacier in Alaska reveals tree stumps from the Medieval Cooler Period. / sarc
“Retreating Alaskan Glacier Reveals Remains Of Medieval Forest”
“….Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge….”
August 26, 2013
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/retreating-alaskan-glacier-reveals-remains-of-medieval-forest/
so…..tell me again why plant nurseries sell these plants….to be planted in people’s yards….outside of their “native” habitat
Jim Steele says: @ur momisugly August 29, 2013 at 7:17 am