Evidence that higher [CO2] increases tree growth sensitivity to temperature: a comparison of modern and paleo oaks

Abstract

To test tree growth sensitivity to temperature under different ambient CO concentrations, we determined stem radial growth rates as they relate to variation in temperature during the last deglacial period, and compare these to modern tree growth rates as they relate to spatial variation in temperature across the modern species distributional range. Paleo oaks were sampled from Northern Missouri, USA and compared to a pollen-based, high-resolution paleo temperature reconstruction from Northern Illinois, USA. Growth data were from 53 paleo bur oak log cross sections collected in Missouri. These oaks were preserved in river and stream sediments and were radiocarbon-dated to a period of rapid climate change during the last deglaciation (10.5 and 13.3 cal kyr BP). Growth data from modern bur oaks were obtained from increment core collections paired with USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data collected across the Great Plains, Midwest, and Upper Great Lakes regions. For modern oaks growing at an average [CO] of 330 ppm, growth sensitivity to temperature (i.e., the slope of growth rate versus temperature) was about twice that of paleo oaks growing at an average [CO] of 230 ppm. These data help to confirm that leaf-level predictions that photosynthesis and thus growth will be more sensitive to temperature at higher [CO] in mature trees-suggesting that tree growth forest productivity will be increasingly sensitive to temperature under projected global warming and high-[CO] conditions.

Biomass increases attributed to both faster tree growth and altered allometric relationships under long‐term carbon dioxide enrichment at a temperate forest

“…The apparent absence of an eCO 2 effect on tree allometry is surprising because tree geometry, and in particular the relationship between diameter and height, has been shown to be affected by other environmental factors (Chave et al, ; Duncanson, Dubayah, & Enquist, ; Hulshof, Swenson, & Weiser, ; Ibáñez, Zak, Burton, & Pregirzer, ; Lines, Zavala, Purves, & Coomes, ; Samuelson et al, ; Voelker et al, ; Way & Oren, ). For example, the DBH– H relationship may be modulated by plant–water relations.…”

Different ways to die in a changing world: Consequences of climate change for tree species performance and survival through an ecophysiological perspective

“…In view of this increase in performance and productivity promoted by high [CO 2 ], even in the presence of abiotic stresses, should we really be concerned about the dynamics of the distribution and survival of forest species under a climate change scenario? The answer to this question is extremely complex because the beneficial effects of high [CO 2 ] found in some studies (Drake et al, 2011;Idso & Kimbal, 1997;Oliveira et al, 2016;Pérez-Jiménez, Hernández-Munuera, Piñero, López-Ortega, & del Amor, 2018;Radoglou & Jarvis, 1990;Rodrigues et al, 2016;Roy et al, 2016;Swann et al, 2016;Yu et al, 2014) are in direct contrast to the results of several other reports (Calvo et al, 2017;Clark, Clark, & Oberbauer, 2010;Faralli et al, 2017;Feeley, Joseph Wright, Nur Supardi, Kassim, & Davies, 2007;Voelker et al, 2017).…”

“…The same scenario of uncertainties about the mitigating effect of high [CO 2 ] is also observed for plants exposed to high temperatures, particularly when this stress is associated with drought (Becklin et al, ; Duan et al, ). Under these conditions, increased leaf area and reductions in transpiration rates can significantly reduce latent heat loss, which may increase leaf temperature and subsequently generate a series of disturbances that may enhance vulnerability to heat stress (e.g., increase in R and P R rates; Voelker et al, ) (Figure ).…”

Spatiotemporal Differences in Dominants of Dryness/Wetness Changes in Southwest China

“…and surface resistance of 70 s/m [48]. Noteworthily, increasing evidences from observations and modellings have confirmed that several indicators (e.g., stomatal resistance and LAI) of plant structure and physiology have varied with changing climate and increasing CO 2 level, in spite of some uncertainties and differences (e.g., magnitude of stomatal resistance and LAI variations) among various plants [73][74][75][76][77]. en, incomplete considerations of plant responses would like to impact our results and the dryness/wetness-related researches [78].…”