modelling plant response to nitrogen atmospheric deposition in some french ecosystems: progress and...

Modelling plant response to nitrogen atmospheric deposition in some French ecosystems: progress and limits

Simon RIZZETTO1,2, Salim BELYAZID3, Noémie GAUDIO1,2, Arnaud MANSAT1,2, Harald SVERDRUP4, Anne PROBST1,2

En collaboration avec : Jean-Claude GÉGOUT5, Emmanuel CORCKET6, Didier ALARD6, Manuel NICOLAS7

1 Toulouse University; INP, UPS; EcoLab (Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement) ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France2 CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden5 UMR LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France6 UMR BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612

CESTAS Cedex – France7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300

Fontainebleau, France

24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTORome, 7th April 2014 2

Context

Improvement of the modelling approach

EUNIS habitats classification

final goals = to formulate nitrogen dose-response relationships at a regional scaleto upscale from individual sitesto quantify “no net loss of biodiversity”

Plants ecological response,biodiversity indicators

Coupled biogeochemical – ecological modellingImpact of atmospheric deposition scenarios on forest

ecosystems

VEG table Species richness

National scaleICP forest network

ForSAFE-VEG modelimprovement of input dataclimate change scenarios


Presentation outline

I) Material and methods: i. sites presentationii. input deposition scenariosiii. model and validation

II) Results:i. resultsii. analysis

III) Prospects:i. biodiversity indicesii. vegetation response


I.i. Sites presentation

Data source:

French ICP-Forest Network (ONF – RENECOFOR)

- Part of the European network for forest health survey (since 1992)

- Hundred forest sites

Number of sites

Operation types

102 Site description

Trees inventory and dendrometric measures

Dendrochronology

Observations: defoliation, pathological symptoms…

Phenology

Take litter fall samples

Leaves analysis

2 soils description and analysis

Inventories of vegetation ecology

Meteorological data

Phytoecological surveys, list of plants

17 Open field and throughfall deposition

Fog analysis

Soil solution concentration and fluxes


I.i. EUNIS classification

1 Leguédois, Sophie and Party, Jean-Paul and Dupouey, Jean-Luc and Gauquelin, T. and Gégout, Jean-Claude and Lecareux, Caroline and Badeau, Vincent and Probst, Anne La carte de végétation du CNRS à l'ère du numérique. (2011) European Journal of Geography . ISSN 1278-3366

Two methods: EUNIS = Corine land cover 2006 x

Ü0 125 250 375 50062,5Kilometers

French potential vegetation (Leguédois et al., 20101)

Map of French EUNIS forest habitats Some problems

e.g.: Spruce site in G1.6 (Fagus woodland) !!

exhaustive plant species list on each site (ICP forest network)

use of EUNIS key to determine habitats

Similarity Or correspondence problem


I.i. Sites selection

code_place Essence Intitule_EUNIS_niveau3 lambertx lamberty Type niveau_1 niveau_2 niveau_3 niveau_4 niveau_5

CHS41 Chêne sessileBoisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 518900 2286000 M G G1 G1.8 G1.85

CPS77Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile

Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 628100 2383900 M G G1 G1.8

G1.81, G1.85

EPC08 Epicéa communPlantations très artificielles de conifères 777600 2552800 M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11



HET30 Hêtre Hêtraies 696600 1902100 F G G1 G1.6 G1.67 G1.672

HET64 Hêtre Hêtraies 355900 1798700 M G G1 G1.6 G1.62G1.622 à 624

SP05 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 927900 1951700 F G G4 G4.6 SP11 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 580600 1762600 F G G4 G4.6 SP38 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 896900 2053800 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132

SP57 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 953600 2411900 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.1321SP68 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 957500 2337000 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132

Selection of 3 sites: Sessile oak, Norway spruce, Silver fir

code_place Essence Intitule_EUNIS_niveau3 lambertx lamberty Type niveau_1 niveau_2 niveau_3 niveau_4 niveau_5

CHS41 Chêne sessileBoisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 518900 2286000 M G G1 G1.8 G1.85

CPS77Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile

Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus 628100 2383900 M G G1 G1.8

G1.81, G1.85




HET30 Hêtre Hêtraies 696600 1902100 F G G1 G1.6 G1.67 G1.672

HET64 Hêtre Hêtraies 355900 1798700 M G G1 G1.6 G1.62G1.622 à 624

SP05 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 927900 1951700 F G G4 G4.6 SP11 Sapin pectiné Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus 580600 1762600 F G G4 G4.6 SP38 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 896900 2053800 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132

SP57 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 953600 2411900 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.1321SP68 Sapin pectiné Boisements à Picea et à Abies 957500 2337000 F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132

SiteTree

dominant species

EUNIS habitat Loc. Altitude Type level_1 level_2 level_3 level_4 level_5

CHS41 Sessile oak Acidophilous Quercus dominated woodland North-W 127 m M G G1 G1.8 G1.85

EPC87 Norway spruce

Highly artificial coniferous plantations Center-W 650 m M G G3 G3.F G3.F1 G3.F11

SP57 Silver fir Abies and Picea woodlands North-E 400 m F G G3 G3.1 G3.13 G3.132


I.ii. Input deposition scenarios

sites Oakscenarios BKG

< Spruce < Fir (for measured and modeled values) < MFR < GP < CLE (for all sites and all pollutants)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100Dep

ositi

on (e

q.ha

-1.y

r-1)

Année

Input deposition scenarios

CLE

GP

MFR

BKD


I.iii. Presentation of the model

19th biennal ISEM Conference / Simon RIZZETTOToulouse, 28th October 2013 9

INPUTSVegetation database = VEG Table (species ecological requirements)

INPUTSClimateSoilForest managementNitrogen deposition

VEGEcological model

I.iii. ForSAFE-VEG: Biogeochemical-ecological coupled model

ForSAFEBiogeochemical model

OUTPUTS

OUTPUTS = cover, species composition,critical loads

(Sverdrup et al., 2007)


I. iii. ForSAFE parameterization

Always interacting with the modellers regular model improvements on:

- Input variables: hard work on original dataunits variables adapted for ecological representativity

- Model code and sites characteristics: integration of

light requirements (Ellenberg et al., 1992; Gardiner et al., 2009)

nitrogen foliar retention (Hagen-Thorn et al., 2006)

relative foliar composition in terms of Basic Cations and Nitrogen (Sariyildiz and Anderson, 2005)

fine roots distribution in the soil (Bolte and Löf, 2010; Bolte and Villanueva, 2006…)


I. iii. Model validationValidation: soil solution data (example of one spruce site)

Comparisons between measured and simulated data:Significative statistic tests

Measured dataSimulated data

STORM

Differences between measured and simulated data for nitrogen… underlined by many authors de Vries et al. 2010

2. impact of natural disturbances on the woodland

Two hypothesis:

1. lack of retroaction by the vegetation (Moore et al. 2007) development of the GRAFT module by Swedish modellers


II. Results


II.i. Results: deposition scenarios

0200400600800

10001200

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100Dep

ositi

on (e

q.ha

-1.y

r-1)

Année

Input deposition scenarios

CLEGPMFRBKD

Soil solution parameters are hardly impacted by deposition scenarios,

but not only…

- Important similar variations in the

soil solution response for each

scenario

For each selected site:

higher impact observed on CLE and GP scenarios on BSat

and BC


II.ii. Results analysis

Clear cut Clear cut

ForSAFE improvement:

forest management parameters as input data:

- age of the woodland

- past and future cuts calendar

- species growth characteristics and wood volumes possibly collected

Soil solution parameters are impacted by: - forest management (short time scale)- deposition scenarios (long time scale)


II.i. Results: climate change scenarios

- Impact of deposition scenarios (CLE > MFR)

Soil solution parameters impacted by:- forest management on a short time

scale- deposition and climate change on a

long time scale

- Obvious impact of climate change by 2080

- Observation:Impactdeposition < ImpactClimate change

- No difference between CC and deposition during short term periods after clear cuts


II.ii. results: biodiversity indices

69%

Sessile oak Norway Spruce Silver fir0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Evolution of the number of species

2010MFRGPCLE

Spec

ies n

umbe

r

%: loss of biodiversity

58%53%

46%49%

54%

31%29%

39%

Oak Spruce Fir18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

C/N evolution

2010MFRCLEGPC/

N

Oak Spruce Fir4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

pH evolution

2010MFRCLEGPpH

2100

21002100


Conclusion - Discussion

- ImpactCLE > ImpactMFR on basic cations and [N] in soil solution at century scale

BUT

- Climate change hardly impacts base saturation due to increase of mineralization

i.e.: soil T°C = mineralization = [Basic cations]

- Forest management impacts soil solution parameters on a short time scale

- C/N and pH seem to not be sensitive enough to quantify “net loss of biodiversity”

- Ecosystem, habitat and species effects exist actually


III.ii. Prospects: vegetation response

- Input data extrapolation

- Results extrapolation on all the 102 sites- - Spatialisation at a continue scale

Work on the VEG table still in progress:

- species biological characteristics and/or species physiological and ecological response- need to add simulation on vegetation with VEG table- and vegetation feedback with the GRAFT module

Thank you for your attention !

Simon RIZZETTO1,2, Salim BELYAZID3, Noémie GAUDIO1,2, Arnaud MANSAT1,2, Harald SVERDRUP4, Anne PROBST1,2

En collaboration avec : Jean-Claude GÉGOUT5, Emmanuel CORCKET6, Didier ALARD6, Manuel NICOLAS7

1 Toulouse University; INP, UPS; EcoLab (Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement) ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France2 CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden5 UMR LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France6 UMR BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612

CESTAS Cedex – France7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300

Fontainebleau, France

modelling plant response to nitrogen atmospheric deposition in some french ecosystems: progress and...

Documents

th cce w orkshop

f orce

eeting simon rizzetto

france slide

lagrobiopole f

forest ecosystems

vegetation response

map of french eunis