From Duke University and the “I was sure those tree rings were linear indicators” department, comes this news: Climate Change May Speed Up Forests’ Life Cycles
DURHAM, N.C. – Many climate studies have predicted that tree species will respond to global warming by migrating via seed dispersal to cooler climates. But a new study of 65 different species in 31 eastern states finds evidence of a different, unexpected response.
Nearly 80 percent of the species aren’t yet shifting their geographic distributions to higher latitudes. Instead, they’re staying in place – but speeding up their life cycles.
The Duke University-led study, published online Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Global Change Biology, is the first to show that a changing climate may have dual impacts on forests. It adds to a growing body of evidence, including a 2011 study by the same Duke team, that climate-driven migration is occurring much more slowly than predicted, and most plant species may not be able to migrate fast enough to stay one step ahead of rising temperatures.
“Our analysis reveals no consistent, large-scale northward migration is taking place. Instead, most trees are responding through faster turnover – meaning they are staying in place but speeding up their life cycles in response to longer growing seasons and higher temperatures,” said James S. Clark, H.L. Blomquist Professor of Environment at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.
Anticipating the impacts of this unexpected change on U.S. forests is an important issue for forest managers and for the nation as a whole, Clark said. It will have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity and carbon storage.
To test whether trees are migrating northward, having faster turnover, or both, the scientists went through decades of data on 65 dominant tree species in the 31 eastern states, compiled by the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis program. They used computer models to analyze the temperature and precipitation requirements of the trees at different life stages, and also considered factors like reproductive dependence of young and adult trees.
“The patterns we were able to see from this massive study are consistent with forests having faster turnover, where young trees tend to be more abundant than adult trees in warm, wet climates. This pattern is what we would expect to see if populations speed up their life cycle in warming climates,” said lead author Kai Zhu, a doctoral student of Clark’s at Duke. “This is a first sign of climate change impacts, before we see large-scale migrations. It gives a very different picture of how trees are responding to climate change.”
The fact that most trees are not yet showing signs of migration “should increase awareness that there is a significant lag time in how tree species are responding to the changing climate,” Zhu said.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and Zhu was supported by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant.
Christopher W. Woodall, research forester at the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station in St. Paul, Minn., Souparno Ghosh, a postdoctoral researcher in Duke’s Department of Statistical Science, and Alan E. Gelfand, J.B. Duke Professor of Statistics and Decision Sciences in Duke’s Department of Statistical Science, were co-authors of the study. Clark also holds an appointment as professor in the Department of Statistical Science.
Paper:
“Dual Impacts of Climate Change: Forest Migration and Turnover through Life History”
Kai Zhu, Christopher W. Woodall, Souparno Ghosh, Alan E. Gelfand, James S. Clark
Published Sept. 11, 2013, in Global Change Biology
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12382
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12382/abstract
Their logic is somewhat backwards, because of predetermined assumptions. They assume that plants are migrating north to escape increased heat, when it really is that conditions have improved for the species.
Also, they do not seem to have realized that plants generally grow faster, the closer to the equator they are …
These guys also missed Chestnut Blight, Elm Disease, Ash Decline and the new Hickory problems showing up in Tennessee, not to mention hardwoods are planted for the benefit of your grandkids not you. If you know your kids (and thus grandkids) are not interested in farming why bother planting hardwoods? The softwoods are going to be more profitable.
I don’t suppose they might conclude that trees are not bothered by 1.2º change over 100 years, having it in their genes to ride out these natural variations because the more important factors: impotent pests, water, nutrients, weather, tree-friendly flora and fauna are abundant.
And maybe the seed spreading mechanism is another thing they don’t understand about trees. Viable seeds have to be spread and they have to come to rest in a viable location. A warmer or cooler location that is pest-free or have adequate sun or non-competing trees and shrubbery may or may not be close by in terms of the range of seed spreaders. I mean, how far is a seed going to go in the gut of a chipmunk or bird that is happy where it is?
This is an unbelievable example of just how inept our Academic Environment has become. It seems NOBODY in Academia is willing to ask the hard questions anymore.
I look at this abstract and immediately several questions come to mind. First, what impact has logging had on tree populations in the studies areas? Second, what data do you have that shows that the tree’s “cycle” has indeed sped up? It would seem to me that you would have to show a repeated measures graph over time showing an increase in seedlings over time to show an acceleration in cycle. Is there increased rate of tree growth?? .. though they “claim” there is, I don’t see any analysis on actual tree growth, just population analysis.
And .. then of course, .. the catch phrase that will ensure that this paper gets included into Cook’s next bogus consensus paper … just mention “climate change” .. even though not one shred of evidence, no data points, not even any of the methodology is associated with assessing the impact of climate or climate change on the tree populations.
This .. folks ..is why I left Academia. It is full of dumbasses who politics off as sound knowledge. Pathetic.
Gail Combs says:
September 12, 2013 at 6:01 am
http://www.sturmsoft.com/climate/suckling_mitchell_2000_fig2_3.gif
This MAP of movement of the Köppen climatic boundaries in the midwest shows why these ‘Biologists’ is having such a tough time in seeing movements in the eastern states.
=================
“this suggests a lack of evidence for any systematic wintertime warming in the central United States that might be anticipated under a global-warming scenario.”
Suckling, P.W. and Mitchell, M.D. 2000. Variation of the Koppen C/D climate boundary in the central United States during the 20th century. Physical Geography 21: 38-45.
Greg Goodman says:
September 12, 2013 at 2:53 am
…..”Not migrating YET. So it’s a forgone conclusion that they will , cos we “know” they will, we just can’t find any actual evidence of that YET. In the mean time we have some new spin that they MAY not be able to cope.”
Missing last sentence – So, send more money to allow us to study this serious and potentially devastating development further.
After just reading Pamela’s Gray’s comment —“no feet touched the soil” which I can only assume is true; and that after reading something of a massive study, I actually felt deflated. Scientific study (at times) seems to be becoming a digital armchair activity. No accounting for unknown unknown’s. Sad!
“The study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and Zhu was supported by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant.”
That little paragraph tells you all you need to know. The NSF has been funding this garbage for some time. They are thoroughly politicized, and they thoroughly politicize the “studies” they fund. Hey, anyway you can get your dissertation paid for, right?
Without the climate change alarmism the conclusion of this article would be … plants are returning to their normal rates of growth after being suppressed due to low levels of CO2 the last few million years.
ferd berple says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 6:13 am
…Trees on the other hand always stay in place except maybe in Disney cartoons. An understandable mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OR the tree in The Minnesotans For Global Warming Song “Hide The Decline II” (If I had a Mann with an ax chasing me I would run too.)
dp says:
September 12, 2013 at 6:29 am
And maybe the seed spreading mechanism is another thing they don’t understand about trees.
===========
for example, the response of seeds to fire. fire opens up new areas for growth in the forest, so some species of seeds simply lie dormant until then.
this suggests that seeds maybe smarter than the researcher that are studying them.
Climate change has many parallels with fire suppression. We were taught that forest fires were bad. Yet new it is known that many species of plants are adapted to fire and need fires as part of their life cycle. Fire suppression harms these plants and the animals that rely on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ecology
Similarly, we are taught that climate change is bad. Yet climate change has been going on for millions of years, so it seems likely that there will be species of plants and animals that rely on climate change for their survival. It seems likely that we will discover that efforts to suppress climate change are as harmful to those species as fire suppression is to fire adapted species.
Wait till the Ents wake up. then Canada’s in for it.
How do these people get funding for “settled science” that (apparently) 97% of scientists already know? Didn’t they get the team memo?
Catcracking says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 6:21 am
…. Of course the administration has mastered the tactic of spreading your dollars to buy support from the masses. It is no different than garnering support by expanding food stamps and giving Obama cell phones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That tactic was known by the Fabians from the start.
“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – Fabian co-founder, George Bernard Shaw
It explains the rapid growth of government giveaway programs. Once you have ‘bought’ close to half the population with bread, circuses or jobs you are in control. Of course you have also managed to kill off the host (the Peters) who will then join the Paul’s until the civilization/country collapses.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. Scottish historian Alexander Tytler set forth a cycle that every democracy goes through.
With luck, the internet and people like Anthony Watts, maybe we can short circuit that typical cycle.
oldgamer56 says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 6:27 am
…As for the speeding up of growth, perhaps trees have actually been surviving on marginal conditions and the increase in CO2 is actually providing them with more fuel to grow to their potential….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
That is what this study indicates:
BURN COAL, FEED A TREE!
The fact that most trees are not yet showing signs of migration “should increase awareness that there is a significant lag time in how tree species are responding to the changing climate,” Zhu said.
Or the ‘changing climate’ is fantasy…
Hmmmm, so the trees are in a state of denial. Those trees that do not uproot and move should be burnt as denialists. Paper manufactured from their cellulose should not be used, as it is a denialist, head in the sand, publishing material, used to kill our great grandchildren. GK
I call BS.
Let’s accept for just a minute that the climate IS changing. Let’s also assume that it’s been changing rapidly since 1979. Even so…
The degree of temperature change from “here” to 100 yards “over there” across, let’s see… 30 years of global warming, is miniscule. There is no way to measure that small amount of temperature change. The life cycle of trees is so long that there is no meaningful way to measure any “migration” of the trees over such a short period. There are no controls for “maybe it’s a little wetter ‘over there.'” Or maybe the fertilizer is better “over there.” Or that side of the hill “over there” has more sunshine. Or probably a dozen more things I haven’t thought of yet.
There is absolutely no way to correlate any supposed “migration” to the non-measurable temperature change “over there.” None.
ferd berple says….
Thanks Ferd, I am updating my files with the additional info.
Their problem is that climate models are even worse at regional predictions than they are at global ones. So they don’t know which populations they would expect to move.
Also, though not specifically mentioned in the abstract, if CO2 is as well mixed as is claimed, then the beneficial effects of increased CO2 will apply at all locations.
yet another paper with modeled outcomes not based on observation but what should happen if there was sufficient warming ,which there is not. the only thing worth noting in the paper is it reiterates how good more co2 is for trees.
there are obviously many intilectual heavy hitters that post on this blog and many others sceptical of cAGW,surely as well as posting comment here,all the comments and some questions should be mailed to the team that produced the paper.
i believe that currently many of these people are operating in a bubble where they never receive any negative critique of their work.
if there was wide scale questioning of as many unsound papers as possible from a variety of people every single time they produce papers like this,surely they may begin to wake up to the fact that people other than indoctrinated climate scientists are reading this rubbish and tearing it to bits .
to be fair,recent experience tells me they may not be inclined to reply ,but a constant barrage of emails highlighting the obvious errors would surely have some sort of impact .
Let’s not forget the other anthropogenic plant food – NOx.
ferd berple says: @ur momisugly September 12, 2013 at 6:56 am
….this suggests that seeds maybe smarter than the researcher that are studying them.
…Similarly, we are taught that climate change is bad. Yet climate change has been going on for millions of years, so it seems likely that there will be species of plants and animals that rely on climate change for their survival. It seems likely that we will discover that efforts to suppress climate change are as harmful to those species as fire suppression is to fire adapted species.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
McClenney mentions that concept applied to humans in this comment
In a BBC comment he says:
“…In the final analysis, while I watch the comical adherence to impossible to prove model predictions I find myself thinking what we really need is another ice age. It is the only thing known to smarten members of the genus homo up…..”
Maybe he is correct.
These people suffer from a common delusion of ”climate scientists”, i e that climate and vegetation is and must be in equilibrum. Occasionally they might be, but mostly they are not. The reason is that trees migrate rather slowly, on the order of a few kilometers per year, while climate often changes very much faster.
Take the Preboreal stage early in the current interglacial. For many years it was thought that this was a rather cool interval in northern Europe, since the flora was dominated by pine and birch and boreal herbs. Then somebody got the bright idea to check the altitude of the tree-line. It was higher in the Preboreal, immediately after the end of the ice age than it has ever been since! Temperatures must have been at least 2-3 degrees centigrade warmer than now. However all the temperate deciduous trees, oak, elm, lime, beech etc that ought to have grown up here were still on their way north from their ice-age refuges down near the Mediterranean and only arrived a couple of thousand years later, when temperatures were already declining (hazel got a head start, probably because it was spread by humans who liked filbert nuts).
Did the pine and birch suffer badly from having to grow in such a warm climate? Apparently not, they grew everywhere including in places where they have never grown since.
The real threat to tree diversity is cold (=ice ages), not heat. A couple of million years ago Europe had almost as many tree species as North America has, Redwoods, Douglas Firs, Baldcypress, Sweet Gums, Hackberries, Laurels, Hickories and many others, they all grew in Europe then and they are all gone now. There are only a few dozen tree species left that occur naturally in Europe today.
Almost every interglacial one species or another that occurred during the previous interglacial goes missing because the cold killed it off even in its last remaining refuge somewhere down in the Mediterranean Basin or Transcaucasus.
Also it should be noted that not all tree species do respond to a warmer climate during interglacial by expanding. During the previous (Eemian) interglacial beech (Fagus silvatica) never reached Northern Europe, though it is common there in this interglacial. On the other hand Serbian Spruce (Picea omorika) was widespread, particularly late in the interglacial, while this time around it has stayed put on about 100 acres on a few mountain tops in Serbia. Why? Nobody knows.
Clark and his team are pretty thorough and clever. The conclusions he draws are not the only conclusions possible from his data, however. There are also some confounding of variables. No time to get into it right now, just mentioning it. In brief, his data also indicate that forests are likely to respond only slowly to warming and without dieback, even though he draws alarming conclusions about inability to migrate. In an earlier paper he in fact showed that trees respond more to competition than to warming.