Research Article | Published: 25 March 2018

Dynamic forest vegetation models for predicting impacts of climate change on forests: An Indian perspective

Manoj Kumar, S.P.S. Rawat, Hukum  Singh, N.H.  Ravindranath and Naveen  Kalra

Indian Journal of Forestry | Volume: 41 | Issue: 1 | Page No. 1-12 | 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2018-F7L9Y5 | Cite this article

Abstract

Understanding climate change vulnerability of Indian forests has received wider attention in recent years and a number of assessments with different approaches have emerged over time. These assessments have mostly used climate-sensitive vegetation models to explain the climate change impacts.  In these studies, trees constituting a particular forest are often clubbed together into small number of groups having similar functional traits referred as Plant Functional Types (PFTs).  Most of the Forest Vegetation Models (FVMs) are still in their developmental stage and there have been attempts at various levels to develop more versatile and precise models. Several developing countries, including India, still lag behind in developing dynamic vegetation models (DVMs), which could be appropriate for the local applications to predict the impact on forests at regional level. This is restrained mainly because of the lack of long-term observations with respect to various interacting biotic, abiotic and climatic (or environmental) variables  in a forest ecosystem, like water and nitrogen use efficiency, response to elevated concentration of CO2, nutrient cycling, net primary productivity, etc. The observations on influence of the environmental variables on forest ecosystems are available in discrete form. Existing FVMs integrate observations more appropriately for their place of origin for which they have been developed. Different types of forests in different climatic zones are supposed to respond differently to climatic changes. Hence, it is imperative that models are developed for the specific biogeographic regions in order to predict the influences more accurately. It may not be wise to use existing FVMs in their pristine form for all of the region without considering the regional influences. Various challenges associated with the usage of the generic models of external origin with special reference to Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS) model - being widely used  and accepted in Indian policy documents- is presented in this paper. We also discuss on the need for developing a regional FVM for climate change impact studies, so that the impact prediction is more precise and reliable.

Keywords

Climate change, Dynamic Vegetation Models (DVMs), Forest Vegetation Models (FVMs), Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS), Plant Functional Types (PFTs)

Access Options

250/-

Buy Full Access in HTML Format

Instant access to the full article.

Get access to the full version of this article. Buy Full Access in HTML Format

References

1. Aaheim, A., Chaturvedi, R. K. and Sagadevan, A. A. (2011). Integrated modelling approaches to analysis of climate change impacts on forests and forest management. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 16(2), 247-266 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9254-x

Google Scholar

2. Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J. (2005). A parameterization of leaf phenology for the terrestrial ecosystem component of climate models. Global Change Biology, 11(1), 39-59 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00890.x

Google Scholar

3. Ashcroft, M. B., Chisholm, L. A. and French, K. O. (2009). Climate change at the landscape scale: predicting fine grained spatial heterogeneity in warming and potential refugia for vegetation. Global Change Biology, 15 (3), 656-667 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01762.x

Google Scholar

4. Bachelet, D., Lenihan, J. M., Daly, C., Neilson, R. P., Ojima, D. S., and Parton, W. J. (2001). MC1: a dynamic vegetation model for estimating the distribution of vegetation and associated ecosystem fluxes of carbon, nutrients, and water. Pacific Northwest Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-508 https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-508

Google Scholar

5. Bala, G., Gopalakrishnan, R., Jayaraman, M., Nemani, R. and Ravindranath, N. H. (2011). CO2-fertilization and potential future terrestrial carbon uptake in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16 (2), 143-160 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9260-z

Google Scholar

6. Bonan, G. B. (1996). A land surface model (LSM version 1.0) for ecological, hydrological, and atmospheric studies: Technical description and user's guide. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-417+ STR

Google Scholar

7. Brovkin, V., Ganopolski, A. and Svirezhev, Y. (1997). A continuous climate-vegetation classification for use in climate-biosphere studies. Ecological Modelling, 101 (2-3), 251-261 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00049-5

Google Scholar

8. Champion, H. G. and Seth, S. K. (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. Nataraj Publishers. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19720603193. Accessed 15 September 2017

Google Scholar

9. Chaturvedi, R. K. and Gopalakrishnan, R. (2011). Impact of climate change on Indian forests: a dynamic vegetation modeling approach. Adaptation Strategies for http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-010-9257-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9257-7

Google Scholar

10. Cox, P. M. (2001). Description of the TRIFFID dynamic global vegetation model. Hadley Centre technical note, 24, 1-16

Google Scholar

11. Deshingkar, P., Bradley, P. N., Chadwick, M. J. and Leach, G. (1997). Adapting to climate change in a forest-based land use system: a case study of Himachal Pradesh, India. Atmospheric Environment Issues in Developing Countries Series (Sweden)

Google Scholar

12. Devaraju, N., Cao, L., Bala, G., Caldeira, K. and Nemani, R. (2011). A model investigation of vegetation-atmosphere interactions on a millennial timescale. Biogeosciences, 8 (12), 3677-3686 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-8-3677-2011

Google Scholar

13. Díaz, S. and Cabido, M. (1997). Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. Journal of vegetation science, 8(4), 463-474 https://doi.org/10.2307/3237198

Google Scholar

14. Dobrowski, S. Z., Abatzoglou, J. T., Greenberg, J. A. and Schladow, S. G. (2009). How much influence does landscape-scale physiography have on air temperature in a mountain environment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149(10), 1751-1758 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.06.006

Google Scholar

15. Foley, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., Levis, S., Pollard, D., Sitch, S. and Haxeltine, A. (1996). An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes, terrestrial carbon balance, and vegetation dynamics. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 10(4), 603-628 https://doi.org/10.1029/96GB02692

Google Scholar

16. Franklin, J., Davis, F. W., Ikegami, M., Syphard, A. D., Flint, L. E., Flint, A. L. and Hannah, L. (2013). Modeling plant species distributions under future climates: how fine scale do climate projections need to be? Global change biology, 19(2), 473-483 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12051

Google Scholar

17. Friend, A. D., Stevens, A. K., Knox, R. G. and Cannell, M. G. R. (1997). A process-based, terrestrial biosphere model of ecosystem dynamics (Hybrid v3. 0). Ecological Modelling, 95(2-3), 249-287 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(96)00034-8

Google Scholar

18. Gopalakrishnan, R., Jayaraman, M., Bala, G. and Ravindranath, N. H. (2011a). Climate change and Indian forests. Current Science, 348-355

Google Scholar

19. Gopalakrishnan, R., Jayaraman, M., Swarnim, S., Chaturvedi, R. K., Bala, G. and Ravindranath, N. H. (2011b). Impact of climate change at species level: a case study of teak in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(2), 199-209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9258-6

Google Scholar

20. Hansen, A. J., Neilson, R. P., Dale, V. H., Flather, C. H., Iverson, L. R., Currie, D. J. (2001). Global Change in Forests: Responses of Species, Communities, and Biomes: Interactions between climate change and land use are projected to cause large shifts in biodiversity. BioScience, 51(9), 765-779 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0765:GCIFRO]2.0.CO;2

Google Scholar

21. Haxeltine, A. and Prentice, I. C. (1996). BIOME3: An equilibrium terrestrial biosphere model based on ecophysiological constraints, resource availability, and competition among plant functional types. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 10(4), 693-709 https://doi.org/10.1029/96GB02344

Google Scholar

22. Houghton, R. A. (1999). The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use 1850-1990. Tellus B, 51(2), 298-313 https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v51i2.16288

Google Scholar

23. Hunt Jr, E. R. and Running, S. W. (1992). Effects of climate and lifeform on dry matter yield (epsilon) from simulations using BIOME BGC.[ecosystem process model for vegetation biomass production using daily absorbed photosynthetically active radiation]

Google Scholar

24. Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2012). Ministry of Environment and Forests

Google Scholar

25. Kelly, C. K. (1996). Identifying plant functional types using floristic data bases: Ecological correlates of plant range size. Journal of Vegetation science, 7(3), 417-424 https://doi.org/10.2307/3236285

Google Scholar

26. Kraft, N. J. B., Valencia, R. and Ackerly, D. D. (2008). Functional traits and niche-based tree community assembly in an Amazonian forest. Science, 322 (5901), 580-582 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160662

Google Scholar

27. Kucharik, C. J., Foley, J. A., Delire, C., Fisher, V. A., Coe, M. T., Lenters, J. D., (2000). Testing the performance of a dynamic global ecosystem model: Water balance, carbon balance, and vegetation structure. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 14(3), 795-825 https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GB001138

Google Scholar

28. Levis, S., Bonan, B., Vertenstein, M. and Oleson, K. (2017). The community land model's dynamic global vegetation model (CLM-DGVM): technical description and user's guide

Google Scholar

29. Lookingbill, T. R. and Urban, D. L. (2003). Spatial estimation of air temperature differences for landscape-scale studies in montane environments. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 114(3), 141-151 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(02)00196-X

Google Scholar

30. Neilson, R. (1995). A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecological Applications, 5 (2), 362-385 https://doi.org/10.2307/1942028

Google Scholar

31. Parton, W. J., Schimel, D. S., Cole, C. V. and Ojima, D. S. (1987). Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51(5), 1173-1179 https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100050015x

Google Scholar

32. Parton, W. J., Scurlock, J. M. O., Ojima, D. S., Gilmanov, T. G., Scholes, R. J., Schimel, D. S. (1993). Observations and modeling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 7(4), 785-809 https://doi.org/10.1029/93GB02042

Google Scholar

33. Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W. B. and Cole, C. V. (1988). Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: a model. Biogeochemistry, 5(1), 109-131 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02180320

Google Scholar

34. Payette, S. (1992). Fire as a controlling process in the North American boreal forest. A systems analysis of the global boreal forest, 144-169 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565489.006

Google Scholar

35. Peng, C. (2000). From static biogeographical model to dynamic global vegetation model: a global perspective on modelling vegetation dynamics. Ecological Modelling. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380000003483 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00348-3

Google Scholar

36. Prentice, I. C. (1989). Developing a global vegetation dynamics model: results of an IIASA summer workshop

Google Scholar

37. Quillet, A., Peng, C. and Garneau, M. (2010). Toward dynamic global vegetation models for simulating vegetation-climate interactions and feedbacks: recent developments, limitations, and future challenges. Environmental Reviews, 18(NA), 333-353 https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-016

Google Scholar

38. Raich, J. W., Rastetter, E. B., Melillo, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W., Steudler, P. A., Peterson, B. J. (1991). Potential net primary productivity in South America: application of a global model. Ecological applications, 1(4), 399-429 https://doi.org/10.2307/1941899

Google Scholar

39. Raison, J., Eamus, D., Gifford, R. and McGrath, J. (2007). The feasibility of forest free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experimentation in Australia. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra (during 2010 renamed the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency), 110pp.(ISBN: 987-1-921297-68-7)

Google Scholar

40. Ravindranath, N. H., Aaheim, A. and Sathaye, J. (2011). Climate change and forests in India: Note from the guest editors. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(2), 117-118 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9280-8

Google Scholar

41. Ravindranath, N. H., Joshi, N. V, Sukumar, R. and Saxena, A. (2006). Impact of climate change on forests in India. Current science, 354-361

Google Scholar

42. Ravindranath, N. H., Somashekhar, B. S. and Gadgil, M. (1997). Carbon flow in Indian forests. Climatic Change, 35(3), 297-320 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005303405404

Google Scholar

43. Ravindranath, N. H. and Sukumar, R. (1996). Impacts of climate change on forest cover in India. The Commonwealth Forestry Review, 76-79

Google Scholar

44. Ravindranath, N. H. and Sukumar, R. (1998). Climate change and tropical forests in India. In Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Tropical Forest Ecosystems (pp. 423-441). Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2730-3_21

Google Scholar

45. Running, S. W. and Coughlan, J. C. (1988). A general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications I. Hydrologic balance, canopy gas exchange and primary production processes. Ecological Modelling, 42 (2), 125-154 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(88)90112-3

Google Scholar

46. Sato, H., Itoh, A. and Kohyama, T. (2007). SEIB-DGVM: A new Dynamic Global Vegetation Model using a spatially explicit individual-based approach. Ecological Modelling, 200(3), 279-307 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.09.006

Google Scholar

47. Shipley, B., Vile, D. and Garnier, É. (2006). From plant traits to plant communities: a statistical mechanistic approach to biodiversity. science, 314(5800), 812-814 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131344

Google Scholar

48. Singh, S. P. (2014). Attributes of Himalayan forest ecosystems: They are not Temperate Forests. In Proceedings of Indian Science Academy (Vol. 80, pp. 221-233) https://doi.org/10.16943/ptinsa/2014/v80i2/55103

Google Scholar

49. Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., (2003). Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model . Glob. Chang. Biol., 9 (2), 161-185 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x

Google Scholar

50. Smith, T. M., Shugart, H. H. and Woodward, F. I. (1997). Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press

Google Scholar

51. State strategy & action plan on climate change Himachal Pradesh. (2012). Department of Environment, Science & Technology

Google Scholar

52. Upgupta, S., Sharma, J., Jayaraman, M., Kumar, V. and Ravindranath, N. H. (2015). Climate change impact and vulnerability assessment of forests in the Indian Western Himalayan region: A case study of Himachal Pradesh, India. Clim. Risk Manag., 10, 63-76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.08.002

Google Scholar

53. Woodward, F. I. and Cramer, W. (1996). Plant functional types and climatic change: introduction. Journal of Vegetation Science, 7(3), 306-308 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.1996.tb00489.x

Google Scholar

About this article

How to cite

Kumar, M., Rawat, S., Singh, H., Ravindranath, N. and Kalra, N., 2018. Dynamic forest vegetation models for predicting impacts of climate change on forests: An Indian perspective. Indian Journal of Forestry, 41(1), pp.1-12. https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2018-F7L9Y5

Publication History

Manuscript Published on 25 March 2018

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: