Introduction
Accurate predictions of forest growth are a fundamental component of any forest management framework (
Peng 2000). Empirical models of forest growth and yield (G&Y) have been used as the basis of forest management frameworks for over two centuries (
Paulsen 1795;
Subedi and Sharma 2011;
Sullivan and Clutter 1972). Such models are based on historic records of growth and outputs are often given as timber yield, or basal area, as a function of diameter or volume (
Porté and Bartelink 2002). Simple parameterizations and high predictive accuracy have led to the gradual establishment of the empirical approach to G&Y as the operational standard in modern forestry management applications (
Vanclay 1994). Despite their current prominence, the use of many empirical models rests on an underlying assumption of a constant growing environment (
Vanclay 1994;
Yaussy 2000;
Kimmins 2004). As a result, empirical models often have limited predictive capability when long-term changes occur in growing conditions.
Climate has a direct impact on tree growth and overall forest productivity (
Morison and Morecroft 2006;
Taylor et al. 2017), as well as indirect impacts on forest functions and processes, including disturbance (
Boulanger et al. 2013,
2014) and competitive interactions (
Oboite and Comeau 2019;
Adler et al. 2012). As such, there is growing scientific consensus that the long-term changes associated with certain emission scenarios pose significant risk for abrupt and irreversible impacts on the composition, structure, and function of forest ecosystems around the world (
IPCC 2014). Indeed, North American forests are already showing signs of complex structural change under the influence of climate change (
Hogg et al. 2017;
Tremblay and Boudreau 2011;
Michaelian et al. 2011). The impact of projected climatic change on forest growth and composition is expected to vary regionally, contingent on local climate and existing forest conditions. Quantifying the climate impacts on forest growth and composition has therefore become a shared challenge for ecologists and environmentalists internationally in recent time (
McMahon et al. 2011).
Forest managers often maintain databases containing extensive records of measurements taken at periodic intervals on static sites across the management area. These records, commonly referred to as permanent sample plot (PSP) inventories, generally include measurements of tree diameter at breast height (DBH), tree height, live crown, and (or) tree age. PSP inventories can provide valuable insight into tree growth over time and across diverse geographies and are used as key inputs in G&Y models (
Sullivan and Clutter 1972;
Subedi and Sharma 2011).
In Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, the province’s PSP data set contains records of tree growth across a diversity of conditions, ranging from highlands to coastal and subtundra forest ecosystems. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential impacts of climate variability on the growth response of major boreal species in the province based on the historic empirical relationships between species growth and climatic terms. NL’s long-term PSP inventory can be used in combination with spatially explicit records of historic climate (
McKenney et al. 2011,
2013) to empirically investigate the historic response of species to temperature and day and precipitation regimes. A linear mixed effect (LME) modelling approach was used to evaluate species-specific growth response to numerous climatic variables. While a number of fixed-effect environmental parameters were included within the models in an effort to minimize random error, this study is centred around those growing environment variables that are expected to shift under scenarios of climate change, namely annual cumulative growing degree-days (GDDs) and cumulative annual precipitation (
Finnis and Daraio 2018).
Results
Marginal
R2 exceeded 0.45 in each of the models prepared, whereas conditional
R2 exceeded 0.85 (Supplementary Table S3
1). The explained variance for the plot and nest tree random effect terms in all models was relatively large as compared with residual variance (
Table 3, Supplementary Tables S4–S5
1). Considering (
i) the separation between the conditional and marginal
R2, and (
ii) the variance explained by the random effect terms as compared with the residual variance, we can conclude that the random effect terms explain a considerable proportion of the variance in our models and were justified in their inclusion (Supplementary Table S3
1).
RMSE was 3.1 cm
2 in all models, which is relatively low given the range of ΔBA values in the PSP data set (
Fig. 2). Use of a log-normal growth dependent was found to improve the distribution of residuals considerably as compared with models where no transformation was applied to the dependent (Supplementary Fig. S2
1). Of the models prepared, the species-regional model was found to have optimal BIC and AIC values and would be considered the best-fitted model accordingly; although the difference in fit between all models as determined through the aforementioned indicators was quite small.
Stand-level variables were found to be highly significant to species-specific growth response in all regressions. The BAS predictor was found to have a negative relationship to individual tree growth; −1.9% per cm
2·ha
−1 and a
t value of <−50.0 in all models. TSI was found to positively influence growth at ±1.5% per index rank and was significant (
t value > 90.0) across all models. CHW was also found to be significant (
t value < −10.0) across all models and negatively influenced tree growth at a rate of approximately −1.3% per 1% deciduous composition in a stand (Supplementary Table S4
1).
In terms of base productivity, black spruce was the only species found to have an average rate of growth faster than the balsam fir reference level in NL (+8.9% ΔBA·year
−1). Most deciduous species, however, including white birch (−22.0% ΔBA·year
−1), red maple (−28.7% absolute ΔBA·year
−1), and trembling aspen (−11.9% ΔBA·year
−1), had an average growth rate less than the balsam fir reference level (Supplementary Table S4
1).
Through the regional model, GDD was found to have a positive and significant mean relationship to growth in LD, at a rate of 0.02% annual increase in productivity per additional GDD within a year, but negative and significant relationship in NF, at a rate of −0.02% decrease in annual productivity per additional GDD (Supplementary Table S5
1). Conversely, PCP was found to have a significant and negative relationship to productivity in LD (−0.06% annual decrease in productivity·mm
−1·year
−1) and a significant and positive relationship to productivity in NF (0.004% annual decrease in productivity·mm
−1·year
−1; Supplementary Table S5
1). Where no regional interaction was included in the baseline model (Supplementary Table S4
1), the contrasting nature of regional growth response to climatic terms either cancelled out entirely rendering the variable insignificant (i.e., PCP) or otherwise favoured the growth response in NF (i.e., GDD). NF is home to a much greater proportion of plots constituting the provincial PSP inventory, and thereby has greater influence on overall model fit (
Table 1).
The regional GDD response of black spruce, balsam fir, and white spruce was found to be positive in LD (0.01%, 0.02%, and 0.06% annual increase in productivity·GDD
−1·year
−1, respectively) and negative in NF (−0.03%, −0.005%, and −0.05% annual decrease in productivity·GDD
−1·year
−1, respectively) through the species-regional model (
Table 3;
Fig. 3). White birch was the only species found to have a positive growth response in both regions: 0.04% and 0.01% annual increase in productivity·GDD
−1·year
−1 in LD and NF, respectively (
Table 3;
Fig. 3). Species with less growth observations, including red maple, trembling aspen, white pine, and yellow birch (
Table 1), yielded estimates for growth response in both NL and LD that were less significant or otherwise altogether insignificant as compared with species with greater representation (
Table 3;
Fig. 3). Relatedly, the relationship between white pine and trembling aspen to the PCP variable was insignificant, both in NF and LD.
Of those species included in this research scope (
Table 1), three species were found to have a positive growth relationship to the PCP variable in NF: black spruce (0.03% annual increase in productivity·mm
−1·year
−1) and white spruce (0.03% annual increase in productivity·mm
−1·year
−1;
Table 3;
Fig. 3). No species was found to have a positive relationship to PCP in LD. Of the boreal species included in this study, white spruce was found to have a negative growth relationship of the largest magnitude to PCP in LD (−0.14% annual decrease in productivity·mm
−1·year
−1). Black spruce was also found to have a negative growth relationship to PCP in LD (−0.07% annual decrease in productivity·mm
−1·year
−1), but a positive growth relationship to PCP in NF. Of those species included in this study, yellow birch had a negative growth relationship to GDD of the greatest magnitude in NF (−0.1% decrease in productivity·GDD
−1). Balsam fir, white birch, and red maple were found to have a negative growing response to PCP in both the NF and LD regions (
Table 3;
Fig. 3).
INS was found to be insignificant across all models. The SLP variable was observed to relate positively with growth in NF (Supplementary Table S5
1), but had no significant relationship in LD. With no regional interaction in the baseline model (Supplementary Table S4
1), the SLP variable was altogether insignificant.
Discussion
The negative relationship between tree productivity and precipitation for the majority of the boreal species included in this study suggests that either environmental moisture is not generally a limiting factor to tree growth in the province or that the precipitation covariate is capturing the effects of highly collinear variables, such as cloud cover. In either case, excess precipitation or variables highly collinear to precipitation, such as cloud cover, seem to have a negative influence on tree productivity for most species in the study area. This characterization was particularly true in LD, where growth response to precipitation was found to be negative for all species.
LD’s generally cooler growing environment may have historically acted as a constraining factor to evapotranspiration potential as compared with similar latitudes in NF, where ambient temperatures are relatively warmer. Reduced evapotranspiration potential in LD as compared with NF could lend to a surplus of moisture in the growing environment in LD, but a deficit in NF. Further, the GDD covariate used in this study would be collinear and capture the influence of other important temperature-related variables including seasonal high temperatures (
Ettl and Peterson 1995;
Lloyd and Fastie 2002). Such dynamics help to rationalize the positive response to GDD in NF, but negative response in LD. There is some expectation that potential evapotranspiration regimes will be subject to change under the influence of 21st century climate projections (
Chattopadhyay and Hulme 1997;
Kingston et al. 2009). This would be particularly true in NL, where regional projections forecast both a warmer and wetter growing environment (
Finnis and Daraio 2018), and where the GDD growth response of conifer species in LD was generally identified to be positive through this work. Such conditions could very well lend to increased evapotranspiration rates in LD and would likely diverge from the historical growth relationships to precipitation identified through this work. Furthermore, many of NL’s native species including black spruce, balsam fir, tamarack, and trembling aspen are tolerant of a diversity of soil moisture conditions and would generally be considered to be well adapted to those present in LD (
Burns and Honkala 1990a).
In NF, commercially significant softwoods of the province (i.e., black spruce, balsam fir, and white spruce) were observed to have a negative growth relationship to GDD, and in the case of balsam fir, a negative growth relationship to precipitation as well. Where regional climate projections generally entail warmer and wetter conditions across the province through to 2100 (
Finnis and Daraio 2018), our findings may support spruce, which were observed to have a positive growing relationship to precipitation, as having a slight ecophysiologic edge over fir under these projections. This would be particularly true for black spruce, which was found to have the fastest base rate of growth in the NF region (15.9% faster than that of balsam fir; Supplementary Table S5
1).
Still, the interrelated nature of climatic variables to tree growth through processes such as evapotranspiration (
Kişi 2006) means changes in climatic variables are rarely as simple as a cause and effect outcome (
Morison and Morecroft 2006;
Taylor et al. 2017). Long-term changes to numerous climatic variables, including the cumulative annual precipitation, ambient temperature, permafrost, and the frequency and intensity of storm events (
IPCC 2014), will undoubtedly influence the climate-tree growth relationships identified through this research. So, while increased GDD and precipitation may favourably position spruce under current climatic conditions and through current forest dynamics, other simultaneous changes in growing variables anticipated under scenarios of climate change make inference into net change in forest growth outcomes less certain.
The observed regional difference in GDD response remains significant, however, both in that it confirms GDD as a constraining factor to species-specific growth trends within the province and that these climatic terms might have markedly different influence over relatively small spatial scales within a wider global context (<1000 km in this study). While some studies have found the relationship between growth and GDD to be quadratically related (
Lapointe-Garant et al. 2010), growth response varied in this study from one species to the next, and the specific nonlinear relationship might be best determined at the species level. The GDD growing conditions captured through NL’s PSP database is not reflective of the complete ecologic niche of any of the boreal species studied and therefore could not inform a nonlinear fit that would be valuable beyond applications within the study area and indeed beyond those conditions that currently exist within the study area. This holds true for those contrasting precipitation–growth responses identified for black and white spruce which were moderated by regional setting.
With respect to species’ growing niche, some studies have found that an expanded fundamental niche of temperate tree species resultant of contemporary climate forecasts may lend to the retreat of dominant conifer forests in forest transition zones in lower-latitude climates, such as the Atlantic Maritime provinces (
Boulanger et al. 2017;
Steenberg et al. 2011;
Taylor et al. 2017). Concerns around boreal retreat stem from dramatic changes in regional competition dynamics between warm-adapted species like red maple (
Abrams 1998) and cold-adapted species like balsam fir and black spruce (
Ashraf et al. 2015). Generally, warm-adapted species such as red maple have greater productivity in warmer climates; NL being toward the northern extent of their North American realized ecologic niche (
Burns and Honkala 1990b). Given the negative growth response to the precipitation variable observed through this study, and given the insignificant growth response to the GDD variable, we found no evidence of climate–growth relationships currently that would support red maple or other fast-growing temperate species having a ecophysiological advantage under scenarios of climate change versus the established balsam fir and black spruce forests of the province.
Warm-adapted species like red maple currently constitute a marginal portion of NL’s northeastern boreal forest (
Table 1). Given they represent a small component of NL’s current forest composition, these species would have limited capacity to rapidly outpace and replace overwhelmingly conifer dominant forests under the typical horizon of most forest management planning frameworks, even under conditions which may better align with a more temperate species niche. This is not to suggest present day competitive stand dynamics will remain status quo within NL; shifts in forest competitive dynamics resulting from changes in climatic variables change may, and likely will, have implications on the growth relationships identified herein, as discussed.
Indeed, competitive interactions within boreal forest regimes are a significant factor in net forest productivity (
Vose et al. 2012;
Adler et al. 2012;
Boulanger et al. 2017;
Taylor et al. 2017). We found the metrics of competition significantly influenced growth rate. With reference to the stand density predictor, greater densities would be indicative of more stand crowding and greater competition for environmental resources. Accordingly, we found the growth relationship to this variable to be negative across all models. Conversely, the identified positive relationship between growth and the tree stand index predictor can be rationalized given larger trees within the stand generally have a greater competitive edge, greater exposure to environmental resources, and by extension greater opportunity for growth. Ecologic principals such as the law of self-thinning are unlikely to change with shifts in climate normals (
Westoby 1984).
Interestingly, we found the deciduous competition variable to have a negative relationship to the growth dependent. Typically, the live crown in a deciduous forest is greater than that of a conifer forest at comparable stem densities. Live crown directly influences competitive interactions within a stand by impacting the availability of solar resources in the understory (
Zeide 1987). The proportion of deciduous trees within a stand likely correlates with stand-level competitive intensity and, therefore, negatively correlates with the growth rate of individual trees within the stand.
DBH was found to have a significant and positive relationship to growth, exceeding a 7% ΔBA increase per centimetre DBH in all models. Tree growth has been found to accelerate or otherwise remain constant with tree age (
Johnson and Abrams 2009;
Sillett et al. 2010;
Stephenson et al. 2014). We observed that larger trees experience greater increment growth. As this study utilized an explicit ΔBA term, it is somewhat intuitive that larger trees lend to larger area ΔBA. Further study using a proportional growth term (i.e., a percentage area ΔBA) may provide further insight into the significance of the DBH–ΔBA relationship.
Limitations and caveats
We acknowledge that there are limitations to the work conducted here. Indeed, the relationships between tree growth and climatic terms identified through this work were limited by the data available and could not address a full spectrum of potential sources of tree growth variation. Certain environmental variables such as disturbance (e.g., moose browsing, windthrow, silviculture, disease, pests, fire, etc.), soil characteristics, permafrost depth, extreme weather events, and snowpack can influence species’ growth trends. Any growth variation originating from variables not captured in the models herein is treated as random error in this study.
Age and the successional stage of trees was also not considered. Non-uniform growth response to climate change might be expected from longer-lived species, such as white spruce, where climate-driven changes in forest physiology (e.g., stand age and establishment) have been found to have greater impact their ability to adapt under a changing climate (
Hogg et al. 2017). While plots in NL inventory are assigned a generalized stand age, use of this information in a study that sought to conduct analysis on the growth response of individual trees would not be appropriate.
Almost all PSPs used in this analysis are observed within natural forests and commonly contain notable intrastand variability in tree age. Further, less than 6% of the trees in the PSP inventory have had their age recorded (i.e., sample trees). The remaining tree observations within the inventory are assigned an age class by the field crew based on those ages sampled within the plot. Including individual tree age in the model not only introduces biases associated with tree age but also has the effect of limiting the model application. Simply put, we did not have access to robust age information to consider tree age or successional status as a variable. Similarly, tree height was only recorded for sample trees in NL’s inventory program. This inhibited the use of height information for any of the variables prepared in this work. It was for this reason the TSI term was based on measurements of DBH rather than height.
Though the LME models are not intended to be used to inform estimations of forest G&Y, the generalized approach could be used as one input into a forest G&Y modelling approach for the province of NL. Our models determine annual basal area ΔBA (cm2·year−1) through an empirical approach that includes explicit climatic variables as part of its formulation. Such an approach disassociates the relationship between historic growth patterns and future growth trends, where a coupled relationship is characteristic of most current empirical G&Y models, as discussed. This disassociation has the potential to allow key climatic variables to vary within the model horizon, as would be the case in any application in which a model is applied under scenarios of climate change. Further, the models prepared in this work are based on variables sourced from or derivative of data sets presently available in the province. Still, the LME approach prepared in this study only represents a component of a fulsome G&Y modelling method. Any G&Y framework to be applied in an operational context would generally require other key inputs, such as calculations for mortality and ingrowth.
Conclusion
We observed the growth response of species to cumulative annual GDD to contrast between sites in LD and NF for the major commercial species in the province. Further, we found that a small proportion of species responded positively to the cumulative annual precipitation variable, indicating that precipitation is not generally a positive contributor to species productivity within the northeastern Atlantic study area. Where regional climate projections entail both a warmer and wetter future climate across the study area, the commercially significant boreal conifer forests of the province may be anticipated to experience a reduction in forest productivity in warmer settings such as NF but a boost in productivity in cooler settings such as LD.
While the species included in our models supported a negative growth relationship to precipitation across the province and particularly in LD, this is likely more a consequence of limits on evapotranspiration potential associated with historic GDD normals. With warmer climate normals and increased evapotranspiration potential, the productivity relationships fitted through the models prepared in this work may be subject to change, and indeed likely will. Beyond evapotranspiration, the relationship between environmental growing variables and growth are complex and often highly interrelated. With climate change expected to bring forth long-term changes in numerous climatic growing variables beyond simply cumulative annual precipitation and GDD, the inferences put forth herein face some degree of uncertainty in practice, as they are rooted on the present-day interactions between growing variables explored through the empirical methods. Still, the empirical study of existing climate–growth relationships established through this work offers key insights that can better inform forest management practice in northeastern boreal forests. While we did not derive explicit predictions of forest G&Y though this work, the relationships identified herein can contribute to the basis of such efforts.
Funding
This research was supported in part by funding provided by the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Land Resources (grant No. 221325).
Data availability statement
Restrictions apply to the availability of these data sets. Climate data was obtained from the Canadian Forest Service (Natural Resources Canada), and permanent sample plot data from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These data sets are available with the permission of the respective organization.