Download Présentation PowerPoint

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, France
2
CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan
3
Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden
4 Applied
5 UMR
Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden
LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France
6 UMR
BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612 CESTAS
Cedex – France
7
Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300
Fontainebleau, France
Context
Coupled biogeochemical – ecological modelling
Impact of atmospheric deposition scenarios on forest
ecosystems
 final goals =
to formulate nitrogen dose-response relationships at a regional scale
to upscale from individual sites
to quantify “no net loss of biodiversity”
ForSAFE-VEG model
improvement of input data
climate change scenarios
VEG table
Species richness
National scale
ICP forest network
Improvement of the
modelling approach
EUNIS habitats
classification
Plants ecological response,
biodiversity indicators
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
2
Presentation outline
I)
Material and methods:
i. sites presentation
ii. input deposition scenarios
iii. model and validation
II) Results:
i. results
ii. analysis
III) Prospects:
i. biodiversity indices
ii. vegetation response
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
3
I.i. Sites presentation
Data source:
Number
of sites
Operation types
102
Site description
Trees inventory and dendrometric
measures
French ICP-Forest Network
(ONF – RENECOFOR)
Dendrochronology
- Part of the European
network for forest health
survey (since 1992)
Phenology
Observations: defoliation, pathological
symptoms…
Take litter fall samples
Leaves analysis
2 soils description and analysis
Inventories of vegetation ecology
Meteorological data
- Hundred forest sites
Phytoecological surveys, list of plants
17
Open field and throughfall deposition
Fog analysis
Soil solution concentration and fluxes
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
4
I.i. EUNIS classification
Two methods:
 EUNIS = Corine land cover 2006 x
French potential vegetation (Leguédois et al., 2010 )
1
 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
0 62,5 125
250
1
375
500
Kilometers
Ü
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
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
5
I.i. Sites selection
code_place
CHS41
CPS77
Site
EPC08
Essence
Intitule_EUNIS_niveau3
lambertx lamberty Type
niveau_1 niveau_2 niveau_3 niveau_4 niveau_5
Chêne sessile
Boisements acidophiles
dominés par Quercus
518900 2286000 M
G
TreeChêne
Mélange
pédonculé - sessile
dominant
species
Epicéa commun
CHS41
Sessile
oak
EPC63
Epicéa commun
EPC87
EPC87
HET30
HET64
SP57
SP05
SP11
SP38
Boisements acidophiles dominés par
Quercus
2383900 Type
M
EUNIS
habitat
Loc. 628100
Altitude
Plantations très artificielles de
conifères
777600
2552800 M
PlantationsQuercus
très artificielles de
Acidophilous
North-W6489001272084000
m MM
conifères
dominated woodland
Epicéa
commun
Norway
Plantations très artificielles de
conifères
Highly
artificial
559400 2088900 M
Center-W6966006501902100
m FM
Hêtraies
coniferous plantations
Hêtre
Hêtraies
355900 1798700 M
Abies
and Picea
Silver
fir
North-E
4001951700
m FF
Sapin pectiné
Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus
927900
woodlands
Hêtre
spruce
1762600 F
2053800 F
G
level_1
G1
G1
level_2
G1.8
G1.85
G1.81,
G1.8
G1.85
level_3 level_4
level_5
G
G3
G3.F
G3.F1
G3.F11
GG
G1
G3
G1.8
G3.F
G1.85
G3.F1
G3.F11
G
G3
G3.F
G3.F1
G3.F11
GG
G3
G1
G3.F
G1.6
G3.F1 G1.672
G3.F11
G1.67
G
GG
G
G
G1
G3
G4
G4
G3
G1.6
G3.1
G4.6
G4.6
G3.1
G1.62
G1.622 à
624
G3.13
G3.132
G3.13 G3.132
Sapin pectiné
Sapin pectiné
Forêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus
Boisements à Picea et à Abies
580600
896900
SP57
Sapin pectiné
Boisements à Picea et à Abies
953600 2411900 F
G
G3
G3.1
G3.13
G3.1321
SP68
Sapin pectiné
Boisements à Picea et à Abies
957500
G
G3
G3.1
G3.13
G3.132
2337000 F
Selection of 3 sites:
Sessile oak, Norway spruce, Silver fir
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
6
I.ii. Input deposition scenarios
Deposition (eq.ha-1.yr-1)
Input deposition scenarios
1200
1000
800
CLE
600
GP
400
MFR
200
BKD
0
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
Année
sites
 Oak < Spruce < Fir (for measured and modeled values)
scenarios  BKG < MFR < GP < CLE (for all sites and all pollutants)
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
7
I.iii. Presentation of the
model
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
8
I.iii. ForSAFE-VEG: Biogeochemical-ecological coupled model
OUTPUTS = cover,
species composition,
critical loads
VEG
Ecological model
INPUTS
Vegetation database = VEG Table
(species ecological requirements)
OUTPUTS
ForSAFE
Biogeochemical model
INPUTS
Climate
Soil
Forest management
Nitrogen deposition
(Sverdrup et al., 2007)
19th biennal ISEM Conference / Simon RIZZETTO
Toulouse, 28th October 2013
9
I. iii. ForSAFE parameterization
Always interacting with the modellers  regular model improvements on:
-
-
Input variables:
hard work on original data
units
variables
adapted
representativity
for
ecological
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…)
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
10
I. iii. Model validation
Validation: soil solution data (example of one spruce site)
Differences between measured and simulated data for
nitrogen… underlined by many authors de Vries et al. 2010
STORM
Two hypothesis:
1. lack of retroaction by the vegetation (Moore et al. 2007)
 development of the GRAFT module by Swedish
modellers
Comparisons between measured and simulated data:
2. impact
of natural
disturbances
on the woodland
Significative
statistic
tests
Measured data
Simulated data
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
11
II. Results
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
12
II.i. Results: deposition scenarios
For each selected site:
 higher impact
observed on CLE and
GP scenarios on BSat
and BC
Deposition (eq.ha-1.yr-1)
-
Important similar
variations in the
soil solution
response for each
scenario
Input deposition scenarios
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Année
CLE
GP
MFR
BKD
Soil solution parameters are hardly impacted
by deposition scenarios,
but not only…
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
13
II.ii. Results analysis
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
Clear cut
Clear cut
Soil solution parameters are impacted by:
- forest management (short time scale)
- deposition scenarios (long time scale)
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
14
II.i. Results: climate change scenarios
- Impact of deposition scenarios (CLE
> MFR)
- Obvious impact of climate change
by 2080
- Observation:
Impactdeposition < ImpactClimate change
- No difference between CC and
deposition during short term
periods after clear cuts
Soil solution parameters impacted by:
- forest management on a short time
scale
- deposition and climate change on a
long time scale
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
15
II.ii. results: biodiversity indices
70
Evolution of the number of species
60
29%
31%
39%
Species number
50
40
53%
58%
69%
30
20
2010
MFR
49%
2100
GP
46%
54%
CLE
%: loss of
biodiversity
10
0
Sessile oak
6.5
Norway Spruce
Silver fir
26
pH evolution
25
6
C/N evolution
24
pH
MFR
CLE
5
GP
C/N
2010
5.5
2100
23
2010
22
MFR
CLE
21
GP
20
4.5
2100
19
4
Oak
Spruce
Fir
18
Oak
Spruce
Fir
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
16
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
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
17
III.ii. Prospects: vegetation response
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
-
Input data extrapolation
-
Results extrapolation on all the 102 sites
Spatialisation at a continue scale
24TH CCE WORKSHOP AND 30TH TASK FORCE MEETING / Simon RIZZETTO
Rome, 7th April 2014
18
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, France
2
CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan
3
Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden
4 Applied
5 UMR
Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden
LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France
6 UMR
BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612 CESTAS
Cedex – France
7
Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300
Fontainebleau, France