Wildfires, drought, insect outbreaks, and windstorms are altering the forest‐associated ecosystem services that are essential for human well‐being, and the impacts of such events are likely to increase under ongoing climate change. However, a widely accepted and operational framework for evaluating forest vulnerability and risk to these disturbances remains lacking. We propose a general framework to assess forest vulnerability and risk based on the widely used concepts of exposure, hazard magnitude, susceptibility, and lack of adaptive capacity as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We suggest a standardized procedure for defining and combining these components, as well as a list of indicators readily applicable to the primary hazards to forests associated with climate change. This framework and its methodology constitute a basis for a systematic assessment of forest risk and vulnerability for policy makers, as well as for forest and land managers, that can aid in the development of forward‐looking policies.
Increased intensity and duration of droughts and high-temperature events have been associated with forest decline in many parts of the world, and these decline events are expected to become more common under climate change. There is, therefore, a need for monitoring and modeling of forest decline. We used a regional forest condition monitoring program (DEBOSCAT) to study the spatial distribution of decline events in 2012 in Catalonia (Northeastern Spain) and their relationship with climatic factors. In 2012, this dataset was collected after an extraordinarily dry summer, and allowed the study of decline events in eight dominant tree species. We fitted a logistic model to predict forest decline probability as a function of species, precipitation and temperature anomalies, solar radiation, and remotely sensed soil moisture data from the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity Mission (SMOS). Broadleaved species were more affected by decline events than conifers. The statistical model explained almost 40% of forest decline occurrence, wherein almost 50% of this variability was explained by species effect, with broadleaved trees being generally more sensitive to the studied factors than conifers. Climatically wetter areas and those more exposed to radiation were more likely to be affected, suggesting better adaptation of forests in dry areas. In general, more damaged forests were characterized by high-positive temperature anomalies, lower than average rainfall, and low soil moisture in summer 2012. The most vulnerable species was Fagus sylvatica, a Euro-Siberian species, contrasting with Pinus halepensis, a typically Mediterranean species, which showed low sensitivity to drought.
Forests partially reduce climate change impact but, at the same time, this climate forcing threatens forest's health. In recent decades, droughts are becoming more frequent and intense implying an increase of forest decline episodes and forest fires. In this context, global and frequent soil moisture observations from the ESA's SMOS mission could be useful in controlling forest exposure to decline and fires. In this paper, SMOS observations and several climate variables are analyzed together with decline and fire inventories, to study the effect of soil moisture on forest decline during an important drought on summer 2012, and on forest fires in the period 2010-2013. Results show that SMOS-derived soil moisture is a complementary variable in forest decline models. Some of the studied tree species exhibit high probability of decline occurrence under dry conditions. First results showed burned areas to be drier than unburned ones previous to the fire occurrences.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.