Monitoring and experimental data related to the modelling sites

Sabine Braun, Institute for Applied Plant Biology, SwitzerlandHarald Sverdrup, University of Lund, SwedenSalim Belyazid, Belyazid consultants, Sweden

Dani Kurz, EKG Geo Science, SwitzerlandBeat Rihm, Meteotest, Switzerland

Contributions to the modelling work

• Vegetation parameterisation for Swiss sites for use in ForSAFE-VEG

• Measurements and modelling at specific Swiss sites:– Input of site history– Input of current vegetation parameters– Field data– Evaluation of model output

• Discussion of model gaps

Forest observation plots selected for modelling

Swiss vegetation table

Establishing the model vegetation table Expert meeting with B. Nihlgård and E. Landolt

• Plant species list:

Switzerland Sweden– 0 lichens 1 lichen– 6 mosses 3 mosses– 7 dwarf shrubs 5 dwarf shrubs– 15 grasses 11 grasses– 5 brackens 2 brackens– 28 herbs 15 herbs– 28 trees and shrubs 15 trees and shrubs

• Assignment of indicator values by expert knowledge for:– acidity– water– temperature– light– plant height– root depth– life time– grazing preference

Ground vegetation distribution parameters file, from Sverdrup et al 200x

Latin name years a0 k+ w+ k- w- kbc/al kbc kph Wmin Wtop Wmax Tmin Ttop Tmax Lmin Lmax h(m) z kP kGMosses and lichens

Leucobryum glaucum 20 A A 5 3.5 A* B 2 A 0.02 0Hylocomium mosses 20 1 0.03 1 1000 0 0.07 1.50E+05 1050 0.05 0.15 0.35 -1 7 15 100 2500 0.02 0 3 0

0Mnium mosses 20 1 0.3 2 1000 0 0.4 0 6.00E+03 0.15 0.25 0.6 0 8 16 50 2500 0.02 0 3 0Dicranella heteromalla 20 B 0 5 3.50E+00 A* B 0 A 0.01 0Polytrichum formosum 20 A+ A+ 5.5 4.00E+00 A* B 0 A 0.03 0Sphagnum mosses 20 1 0.03 1 0.1 3 0.01 1.50E+05 150 0.4 0.6 1 -1 7 15 100 2500 0.02 0 1 0

Dwarf shrubsCalluna vulgaris 30 1.4 0.2 1 3 3 0.2 0 3.00E+03 -0.25 0.15 0.4 -1 7 15 500 5000 0.25 2 1 0.7Vaccinium myrtillus 10 1.6 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 0 1500 -0.1 0.15 0.5 -1 5 11 100 2000 0.3 1 1 2.3Vaccinium vitis-idea 15 1.6 0.03 1 0.003 3 0.35 0 5250 -0.2 0.1 0.45 -1.5 4.5 10.5 500 4000 0.15 1 1 0.7Rhododendron ferrugineum 10 1 0 2 1000 0 0.2 1.50E+05 3.00E+03 0.25 0.35 0.5 -1 5 9 1000 3500 0.5 2 1 0Rubus idaeus 5 1 1 2 1000 0 1 0 1.50E+04 0.15 0.25 0.4 2 10 18 1500 5000 0.8 2 3 9Rubus fruticosus 10 C 0 0 4.50E+00 B B 3 1500 5000 1 2Salix caprea 30 1 B+ 2 1000 0 0.5 0 9.00E+03 0.15 0.35 0.6 -1 5 11 1000 4000 1.2 3 1 9

GrassesAgrostis capillaris 10 1 0.5 2 1000 0 0.2 0 3.00E+03 0.05 0.15 0.5 3 11 19 750 4000 0.25 2 3 2.3Brachypodium pinnatum 5 1 20 2 1000 0 6 0 3.50E+03 0.1 0.2 0.35 3 11 19 1000 3500 0.5 1 3 9Bromus benekenii 5 1 20 2 1000 0 12 0 1.80E+05 0.1 0.2 0.4 5 13 21 250 3000 0.6 2 30 9Calamagrostis villosa 5 B B 6.5 4.50E+00 B B 1.5 750 3500 0.6 2Calamagrostis arundinacea 5 1 0.5 2 1000 0 1.8 0 20800 0.1 0.2 0.4 2 10 18 750 3500 0.5 2 3 0.67Carex pilulifera 5 A+ A+ 5.5 4.5 A B -1 250 3000 0.1 1Carex pendula 5 C C 0 5 C C 1 250 3000 0.5 2hordelymus 5 B+ B+ 0 5 B B 3 100 2000 0.4 2Deschampsia cespitosa 5 1 0.5 2 1000 0 0.2 0 3.00E+03 0.15 0.35 0.6 3 11 19 1000 5000 0.35 2 3 0Deschampsia flexuosa 5 1 0.05 2 1000 0 0.13 6 1950 0.05 0.15 0.3 -1 7 15 250 3000 0.2 2 3 2.3Festuca ovina sl 10 1.4 0.02 2 10 1 0.1 0 1.50E+03 -0.25 0.05 0.25 3 11 19 1500 5000 0.1 1 30 0.67Milium effusum 5 1 20 2 1000 0 8 0 1.50E+05 0.15 0.45 0.6 5 15 20 250 3000 0.5 2 3 9Molinia caerulea 5 1 1 2 1000 0 0.2 0 3.00E+03 0.2 0.3 0.45 5 13 21 1000 5500 0.4 2 30 2.3Nardus stricta 10 1.2 0.05 2 10 1 0.2 1.50E+05 3.00E+03 0.15 0.25 0.4 0 8 16 1500 5000 0.15 2 1 0

Poa nemoralis 5 1 5 2 1000 0 8 0 1.20E+05 0.05 0.1 0.2 2 10 20 1250 5000 0.4 2 3 9Ferns

Blechnum spicant 20 B B 5.5 4.00E+00 B B 3 100 2000 0.15 1Athyrium filix-femina 20 B B+ 7 4.50E+00 B B -1 150 2500 0.4 2Dryopteris dilatata coll 20 1 0.5 2 1000 0 2 0 3.00E+04 0.1 0.3 0.5 3 11 19 150 2500 0.4 2 1 2.3Lycopodium annotinum 5 A A 6.00E+00 4 B C -1 150 2500 0.15 1Pteridium aquilinum 20 1 0.5 2 1000 0 12 0 1.80E+05 0.05 0.2 0.3 2 8 18 750 3250 0.5 2 1 0

HerbsAconitum lycoctonum 20 1 5 2 1000 0 10 0 1.50E+05 0.25 0.55 0.9 2 6 10 1000 5000 1 2 1 0Allium ursinum 2 1 20 2 1000 0 40 0 6.00E+05 0.25 0.2 0.6 4 12 20 250 5000 0.25 2 30 0Anemone nemorosa 10 1 0.5 2 1000 0 0.8 0 1.20E+04 0.2 0.3 0.4 2 10 18 250 3500 0.15 1 3 2.3Antennaria dioica 5 1 0.01 2 1000 0 0.1 0 1.50E+03 0.05 0.1 0.2 0 6 12 2000 5500 0.01 1 1 0Arnica montana 5 1 0.01 2 1000 0 0.6 0 9.00E+03 0.05 0.1 0.2 7 15 20 2000 5500 0.01 1 1 0Epilobium angustifolium 5 1 1 2 1000 0 2 0 3.00E+04 0.15 0.2 0.3 0 8 20 1750 5500 0.8 2 3 32Galium odoratum 3 1 5 2 1000 0 1.2 0 1.80E+04 0.15 0.25 0.4 3 11 19 250 3000 0.15 1 1 0.67Geranium robertianum 3 C 0 0 5.00E+00 B B -1 500 3000 0.15 1Geranium sylvaticum 3 1 1 2 1000 0 1.8 0 2.70E+04 0.15 0.25 0.4 2 10 14 500 3000 0.5 2 3 9

Site specific parameters needed as input parameters in ForSAFE

• Site history• (Actual biomass data)• Soil morphology• Water storage capacity of the soil• Soil chemistry (bulk and solution)• Soil mineralogy: Dani Kurz• Climate: Beat Rihm • Deposition: Beat Rihm

Site history: what we know

• In 1876, a forest law was enacted in Switzerland to maintain sustainability. Since then, records have been well documented.

• In some cases it is possible to follow the site history back to about 1770.

• Branches were utilised up to 1950-1960.

Example of an old forest inventory (1884): Möhlin

soil parameters

Horizont

Tiefe Bez. 620-2 Ah

2-10 AhAl

85-140

Al

(Sw)Bt

(Sd)Bt

10-55

55-85

Farbe pH Kalk Bd.art Dichte Humus Skelett Wurz. BS BCAL

Munsell CaCl2 Mü. 94 Mü. 80 Mü. 126 org. S% Vol% Mü. 130 %

7.5YR 2/2 3.5 0 Lu 1.5 11 0 5 40 4.5910YR 3.69 0 Lu 1.5 6.9 0 2 15 1.64

Lu

Tl10YR 4/6

4.27 0

0 110YR 4/6

3.9 0 18 8.93

10YR 5/8

3.94 0 Lt3 3 0.7 0 0 30 47.91

53.410.5 0 0 794.5

1.5 2

Bodenform Pseudovergleyter Lösslehm-Parabraunerde

Humusform Mullartiger Moder (L)/Of (1.5 cm) / Oh / Ah (2cm)

Durchwurzelungstiefe (cm) 55 mittel

nutzbare Feldkapazität des Wurzelraums (mm)138 mittel

Feldkapazität des Wurzelraums (mm)224 gering

Vernässung (Stufe 0-6) 2 schwach staunass

Luftkapazität (Stufe 1-5) 3.5 mittel

Basensättigung 0-40 cm (%) 18 tief

pH(CaCl2) 0-40 cm 3.85 sehr stark sauer

Site specific parameters needed for evaluation of ForSAFE

• Biomass data• Nutrient cycling• Vegetation cover 2003-2005, in some cases also 1984• Soil chemistry (base saturation, soil solution)

biomass data

Density distribution of biomass and growth dataall permanent observation plots

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200stem volume (m3/ha)

0

10

20

30

40

50

num

ber o

f plo

ts

0 10 20 30stem increment (m3 ha-1 yr-1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

num

ber o

f plo

ts

133 plots 119 plots

Tree biomass:model vs field observation

Aeschau Bachtel

nutrient cycling

N in litterfall 2005

BABAB BR

BRB FR GBMUB ZV

site

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5N

(eq /

m2)

beech fruitsconeswoodneedlesleaves

base cations in litterfall 2005

BABAB BR

BRB FR GBMUB ZV

site

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9K

+ Ca+

Mg

(eq/

m2)

beech fruitsconeswoodneedlesleaves

Soil solution

Nitrate concentration in the soil solution of the observation plot Aeschau

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

2009

Jahr

0

5

10

15

20

25N

O3-

N ( m

g/l)

704020

Tiefe (cm)

Ratio between base cations and aluminium in the soil solution of the observation plot Aeschau

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

2009

Jahr

1.0

10.0

BC

/Al-V

erh ä

ltnis

704020

Tiefe (cm)

Nitrate concentration in soil solutionmodel vs measured concentration

Aeschau Bachtel

Chloride concentration in soil solutionmodel vs measured concentration

Aeschau Bachtel

BC/Al ratio in soil solutionmodel vs measured concentration

Aeschau Bachtel

Development of the ratio between base cations and aluminium as a result of addition

of NH4NO3 (soil depth 50 cm)

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

2009

Jahr

1.0

10.0

BC

/Al-V

erhä

l tnis

100604020

kg N ha-1 a-1N-Belastung .

Total N load (kg N ha-1 yr-1)(deposition + addition)

Year

Ground vegetation

Shift in Ellenberg score class in repeated assessments of ground vegetation

3 4 5 6 7 8 Ellenberg score class for nitrogen 1984

3

4

5

6

7

8 E

llen b

erg

scor

e cl

ass

for n

itrog

en 2

003 /

2004

p<0.05

Cover change in Rubus fruticosus between 1984 and 2003

cover increase significant at p<0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6cover class in 1984

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

cove

r cla

ss in

200

3

Relationship between cover with Rubus fruticosus and N deposition

10 20 30 40Modelled N deposition (kg N ha-1 yr-1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

cov

e r o

fRu b

us fr

u tic

osus

p<0.001

Vegetation run for site Aeschaustandard scenario

��

���

���

���

���

����

��� ���� ��� ��� �� ���� ��� ����

Leucobryum_glaucum Hylocomium_mosses M nium_mosses Dicranella_heteromalla Polyt richum_formosum Sphagnum_mosses Calluna_vulgaris Vaccinium_myrtillusVaccinium_vit is-idea Rhododendron_ferrugineum Rubus_idaeus Rubus_frut icosus Salix_caprea Agrost is_capillaris Brachypodium_pinnatum Bromus_benekeniiCalamagrost is_villosa Calamagrost is_arundinacea Carex_pilulifera Carex_pendula hordelymus Deschampsia_cespitosa Deschampsia_flexuosa Festuca_ovina_slM ilium_effusum M olinia_caerulea Nardus_stricta Poa_nemoralis Blechnum_spicant Athyrium_filix-femina Dryopteris_dilatata_coll Lycopodium_annotinumPteridium_aquilinum Aconitum_lycoctonum Allium_ursinum Anemone_nemorosa Antennaria_dioica Arnica_montana Epilobium_angust ifolium Galium_odoratumGeranium_robertianum Geranium_sylvat icum Hepat ica_nobilis M ercurialis_perennis Origanum_vulgare Oxalis_acetosella Trifolium_repens Adenostylus_alliariaLuzula_luzuloides Sesleria_coerulea Dentaria_pentaphyllos Equisetum_hyemale Equisetum_sylvaticum Circaea_lutetiana Hedera_helix Impat iens_glanduliferaImpat iens_noli-tangere Luzula_sylvatica Cicerbita_alpina Ranunculus_lanuginosus Urt ica_doica Tilia_platyphylla Sambucus_nigra Sorbus_ariaSorbus_aucuparia Alnus_glut inosa Alnus_incana Alnus_viridis Betula_pendula Carpinus_betulus Fagus_sylvatica Quercus_roburQuercus_pubescens Castanea_sativa Prunus_serot ina Prunus_laurocerasus Acer_pseudoplatanus Ostrya_carpinifolia Robina_pseudoacacia Trachyspermum_fortuneiPopulus_tremula Ilex_aquifolium Ulmus_glabra Fraxinus_excelsior Abies_alba Picea_abies Pinus_cembra Pinus_sylvestrisLarix_decidua

Rubus fruticosus

Oxalis acetosella

Hylocomium mosses

Athyrium filix-femina

Vaccinium myrtillus

Hordelymus europaeus

Mnium mosses

Dryopteris dilatata

Polytrichum formosum

Species of ground vegetation in Aeschau: observation vs model

cove

r cla

ss

obse

rved

mod

elle

d

Abies alba + modelled but not observed:Blechnum spicant + 0.5Dryopteris carthusiana + Leucobryum_glaucum 0.6Dryopteris dilatata 1 3.3 Mnium_mosses 2.4Lonicera nigra + Hordelymus_europaeus 19.4Oxalis acetosella 1 2.4 Athyrium_filix-femina 0.7Picea abies + Lycopodium_annotinum 0.00Rubus fruticosus coll. 4 66.8Sorbus aucuparia + * * not in the model listVaccinium myrtillus 1 0.3Hylocomium splendens + 2.9Plagiochila asplenioides 1 *Polytrichum formosum 1 0.5Rhytidiadelphus loreus + *Sphagnum spec. r 0.2Thuidium tamariscinum + *

Species found 2003

What needs to be included into the model

• Change of tree species• Phosphorus nutrition• Interaction between nutrition and drought

Development of the proportion of plots with P deficiency

>10.8-1<_0.8

(mg/g TS)

_

Fagus sylvatica (52 plots)

19841987

19911995

19992003

2007

year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f plo

ts

Picea abies (48 plots)

19841987

19911995

19992003

2007

year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Stem increment of beech and Norway spruce in relation to phosphorus nutrition

<_0.8 >0.8-1 >1P concentration in foliage

(mg/g d.m.)

20

25

30

35

40G

row

th o

f cro

ss s

ectio

n a r

eaof

tre e

s (c

m2 /

year

)p<0.01

Beech

Spruce

Stem increment beech

1990 1995 2000 2005year

0

5

10

15vo

lum

e in

crem

ent (

m3

h a-1

yr-

1 )

41 plots

42 plots

43 plots

49 plots

53 plots

Nutrient concentration in beechN addition experiment Hochwald

19951996

19971999

20022005

2006

Year

0.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.4

Pho

spho

r (m

g/g )

19951996

19971999

20022005

2006

Year

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Pot

ass i

um (m

g/g )

160804020100N addition (kg N ha -1 yr-1)

Drought damages of beech in the N experiment Hochwald in relation to K concentration in the leaves

both years: p<0.001

1 2 3 4 5K in leaves 2002 (mg/g dm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

dro u

ght n

ecr o

ses

(sco

re c

lass

e s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7K in leaves 2006 (mg/g dm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2003 2006

Relation between nitrogen deposition and K concentration in foliage in 2003

10 20 30 40Nitrogen deposition (kg N ha-1 yr-1)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

K in

be e

ch le

aves

200

3 (m

g /g

d.m

.)

p<0.001

10 20 30 40 50N deposition (kg N ha-1 yr-1)

2

3

4

5

6

7

K in

sp r

uce

need

les

2003

(mg/

g)

p<0.001

Fagus sylvatica Picea abies

Thank you for your attention

Acknowledgements:

Federal Office for the Environment

Walter FlückigerVera ThomasIAP team