NCA4 Ch06 Forests Full

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/330716423
CHAPTER 6: FORESTS
Chapter · January 2019

DOI: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH6
CITATIONS READS
15 354
13 authors, including:
David L. Peterson Grant M. Domke

University of Washington US Forest Service
255 PUBLICATIONS 17,727 CITATIONS 154 PUBLICATIONS 3,448 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Robert E. Keane Charles Luce

US Forest Service US Forest Service
267 PUBLICATIONS 13,156 CITATIONS 241 PUBLICATIONS 11,425 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Grant M. Domke on 29 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
6 Forests
Federal Coordinating Lead Authors

James M. Vose
U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station
David L. Peterson
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station
Chapter Leads
James M. Vose
David L. Peterson
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station
Chapter Authors
Grant M. Domke Robert E. Keane
U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station
Christopher J. Fettig
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Charles H. Luce
Station U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station
Linda A. Joyce
U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Jeffrey P. Prestemon
Review Editor
Gregg Marland
Appalachian State University
Technical Contributors are listed at the end of the chapter.
Recommended Citation for Chapter

Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, G.M. Domke, C.J. Fettig, L.A. Joyce, R.E. Keane, C.H. Luce, J.P. Prestemon, L.E. Band,
J.S. Clark, N.E. Cooley, A. D’Amato, and J.E. Halofsky, 2018: Forests. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E.
Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washing-
ton, DC, USA, pp. 232–267. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH6
On the Web: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/forests

Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II
6 Forests
California’s multiyear drought killed millions of trees in low-elevation forests.

Key Message 1
Ecological Disturbances and Forest Health
It is very likely that more frequent extreme weather events will increase the frequency
and magnitude of severe ecological disturbances, driving rapid (months to years) and
often persistent changes in forest structure and function across large landscapes. It is
also likely that other changes, resulting from gradual climate change and less severe
disturbances, will alter forest productivity and health and the distribution and abundance
of species at longer timescales (decades to centuries).
Key Message 2
Ecosystem Services
It is very likely that climate change will decrease the ability of many forest ecosystems
to provide important ecosystem services to society. Tree growth and carbon storage
are expected to decrease in most locations as a result of higher temperatures, more
frequent drought, and increased disturbances. The onset and magnitude of climate
change effects on water resources in forest ecosystems will vary but are already
occurring in some regions.
Key Message 3
Adaptation
Forest management activities that increase the resilience of U.S. forests to climate
change are being implemented, with a broad range of adaptation options for different
resources, including applications in planning. The future pace of adaptation will
depend on how effectively social, organizational, and economic conditions support
implementation.
6 | Forests
Executive Summary
Forests on public and private lands provide conditions. For example, whereas crown fires
benefits to the natural environment, as well as (forest fires that spread from treetop to treetop)
economic benefits and ecosystem services to will cause extensive areas of tree mortality in
people in the United States and globally. The dense, dry forests in the western United States
ability of U.S. forests to continue to provide goods that have not experienced wildfire for several
and services is threatened by climate change decades, increased fire frequency is expected to
and associated increases in extreme events and facilitate the persistence of sprouting hardwood
disturbances.1 For example, severe drought and species such as quaking aspen in western moun-
insect outbreaks have killed hundreds of millions tains and fire tolerant pine and hardwood species
of trees across the United States over the past in the eastern United States (see regional chap-
20 years,2 and wildfires have burned at least 3.7 ters for more detail on variation across the United
million acres annually in all but 3 years from States). Drought, heavy rainfall, altered snowpack,
2000 to 2016. Recent insect-caused mortality and changing forest conditions are increasing
appears to be outside the historical context3,4 and the frequency of low summer streamflow, winter
is likely related to climate change; however, it is and spring flooding, and low water quality in
unclear if the apparent climate-related increase some locations, with potential negative impacts
in fire-caused tree mortality is outside the range on aquatic resources and on water supplies for
of what has been observed over centuries of human communities.12,13
wildfire occurrence.5
From 1990 to 2015, U.S. forests sequestered 742
A warmer climate will decrease tree growth in teragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year,
most forests that are water limited (for example, offsetting approximately 11% of the Nation’s
low-elevation ponderosa pine forests) but will CO2 emissions.14 U.S. forests are projected to
likely increase growth in forests that are energy continue to store carbon but at declining rates,
limited (for example, subalpine forests, where as affected by both land use and lower CO2
long-lasting snowpack and cold temperatures uptake as forests get older.15,16,17,18 However, car-
limit the growing season).6 Drought and extreme bon accumulation in surface soils (at depths of
high temperatures can cause heat-related stress 0–4 inches) can mitigate the declining carbon
in vegetation and, in turn, reduce forest produc- sink of U.S. forests if reforestation is routinely
tivity and increase mortality.7,8 The rate of climate implemented at large spatial scales.
warming is likely to influence forest health (that
is, the extent to which ecosystem processes are Implementation of climate-informed resource
functioning within their range of historic varia- planning and management on forestlands has
tion)9 and competition between trees, which will progressed significantly over the past decade.
affect the distributions of some species.10,11 The ability of society and resource management
to continue to adapt to climate change will be
Large-scale disturbances (over thousands to determined primarily by socioeconomic factors
hundreds of thousands of acres) that cause rapid and organizational capacity. A viable forest-based
change (over days to years) and more gradual cli- workforce can facilitate timely actions that mini-
mate change effects (over decades) will alter the mize negative effects of climate change. Ensuring
ability of forests to provide ecosystem services, the continuing health of forest ecosystems and,
although alterations will vary greatly depend- where desired and feasible, keeping forestland in
ing on the tree species and local biophysical forest cover are key challenges for society.
U.S. Global Change Research Program 234 Fourth National Climate Assessment
6 | Forests
Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Options
To increase resilience to future stressors and disturbances, examples of adaptation options (risk management) have been
developed in response to climate change vulnerabilities in forest ecosystems (risk assessment) in the Pacific Northwest.
Vulnerabilities and adaptation options vary among different forest ecosystems. From Figure 6.7 (Sources: U.S. Forest Service
and University of Washington).
6 | Forests
State of the Sector their natural range of historic variation)9 and

conditions across large landscapes for years
Forests are distributed across the spectrum of to centuries.1
rural to urban environments, covering 896 mil-
lion acres (including approximately 130 million The effects of climate change on forests in
acres in urban, suburban, and developed areas), specific regions are discussed in many of the
or 33% of land in the contiguous United States, regional chapters (for example, Ch. 18: North-
Alaska, and Hawai‘i. The structure and function east, KM 1 and 2; Ch. 19: Southeast, KM 3 and
of these forests vary considerably across the 4; Ch. 21: Midwest, KM 2; Ch. 24: Northwest,
Nation due to differences in environmental KM 1; Ch. 25: Southwest, KM 2; Ch. 27: Hawai‘i
conditions (for example, soil fertility; tem- & Pacific Islands, KM 2 and 5). Rapid changes
perature; and precipitation amount, type, and have been driven by severe drought in combi-
distribution), historical and contemporary nation with insect outbreaks, which have killed
disturbances, and forest management and more than 300 million trees in Texas in 201121
land-use activities. and more than 129 million trees in California
from 2010 to 2017.22 Also, mountain pine beetles
Forests on public and private lands provide have caused tree mortality across more than 25
benefits to the natural environment, as well as million acres in the western United States since
economic benefits and ecosystem services (for 2010, representing almost half of the total area
example, water, fiber and wood products, fish impacted by all bark beetles combined in that
and wildlife habitat, biodiversity, recreational region. Recent warming has allowed mountain
opportunities, spiritual renewal, and carbon pine beetles to erupt at elevations and latitudes
storage) to people in the United States and where winters historically were cold enough
globally. Public forests are mostly managed to keep them in check.4,23,24 Wildfire burned at
for non-timber resources or for multiple least 3.7 million acres nationwide in 14 of the 17
uses; private lands owned by corporations years from 2000 to 2016—an area larger than
are mostly managed for timber production, the entire state of Connecticut—including a
whereas private lands owned by individuals are record 10.2 million acres in 2015 (an area great-
typically managed for multiple uses. To date, er than Maryland and Delaware combined).
assessments of climate change vulnerability Over this same time span, annual federal
and development of adaptation options in the wildfire suppression expenditures ranged from
western United States have occurred mostly $809 million to $2.1 billion (Figure 6.4).
on public lands, whereas assessment and
adaptation planning and implementation in the Recent insect-caused mortality appears to be
eastern United States span public and private far outside what has been documented since
lands, with documented examples of adapta- Euro-American settlement3 and is likely related
tion on most ownership types.19,20 The ability to climate change. It is unclear if the apparent cli-
of U.S. forests to continue to provide goods mate-related increase in area burned by wildfire
and services is threatened by climate and is outside the range of what has been observed
environmental change and associated increases over centuries of fire occurrence.5 Drought, heavy
in extreme weather events and disturbances rainfall, altered snowpack, and changing forest
(for example, drought, wildfire, and insect conditions are increasing the risk of low summer
outbreaks; Figure 6.1), which can pose risks streamflow, winter flooding, and reduced water
to forest health (that is, the extent to which quality, with potential negative impacts on aquatic
ecosystem processes are functioning within resources and human communities.12,13 A changing
6 | Forests
climate and forest disturbances also interact with forest-based workforce in local communities
chronic stressors (such as fungal pathogens and can facilitate timely actions that minimize the
nonnative species) to affect the scale and magni- negative effects of climate change, as long as
tude of forest responses to climate change.25,26 this workforce can support the objectives of
treatments aimed at building forest resilience
The ability of society in general and resource and provide a justification for treatments (for
managers in particular to adapt to climate change example, prescribed fire—the purposeful ignition
will be determined primarily by socioeconomic of low-intensity fires in a controlled setting) that
factors, technological developments, and orga- help minimize potential economic loss. Reduction
nizational capacity (Ch. 28: Adaptation). Although in forestland associated with human land-use
some general principles apply to adaptation decisions, especially conversion of forests to
(defined here as adjustments in natural systems nonforests on private lands, is a significant
in response to actual or expected climatic effects impediment to providing desired ecosystem
that moderate harm or exploit benefits) across all services from forests. Hence, ensuring the con-
forests, it is biophysical variability, socioeconomic tinuing health of forest ecosystems and, where
conditions, and organizational objectives that desired and feasible, keeping forestland in forest
dictate local management approaches. A viable cover are key challenges for society.
Climate Change Effects on Ecosystem Services
Figure 6.1: Many factors in the biophysical environment interact with climate change to influence forest productivity, structure,
and function, ultimately affecting the ecosystem services that forests provide to people in the United States and globally. Source:
U.S. Forest Service.
6 | Forests
Regional Summary primary challenge to maintaining healthy, func-

tional forest ecosystems in a warmer climate;
Forests in the United States vary in their sus- however, forest disturbances resulting from
ceptibility to climate change due to differences human activity can add to the effects of climate
in biophysical conditions and anticipated in some parts of the United States.27 Over the
changes in future climate (see regional chap- past decade, several large-scale disturbances
ters for specific discussions). For example, have killed hundreds of millions of trees at
eastern forests are largely expected to undergo different locations in the United States. The
gradual change, punctuated by rapid changes two Case Studies in this chapter illustrate how
from small-scale disturbances.26 Across disturbances can cause rapid changes in the
most U.S. forests, an increased frequency of ecology and structure of forests that can result
large-scale disturbances is expected to be the in significant social and economic effects.
Case Study: Large-Scale Tree Mortality in the Sierra Nevada

Five years of consecutive drought ended in California
in 2017, with 2015 being the hottest and driest year in
the historical record (since the late 1800s). The drought
weakened trees and enabled extensive bark beetle out-
breaks, which killed 40 million trees across 7.7 million
acres of Sierra Nevada forests through 2015. Annual tree
mortality increased by an order of magnitude to thou-
sands of dead trees per square mile during this period.28
The winters 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 brought sig-
nificant precipitation to much of California, but drought
stress remained high in many areas. An additional 62
million trees died in 2016, and 27 million trees died in Tree Mortality at Bass Lake Recreation Area
2017, bringing the total to at least 129 million trees since Figure 6.2: A five-year drought in California (2011–2016)
led to western pine beetle outbreaks, which contributed
2010.22 Mortality was most severe at lower elevations,
to the mortality of 129 million trees. As a result, the
on southwest- and west-facing slopes, and in areas with structure and function of these forests are changing
shallow soils.29 rapidly. Prolonged droughts are expected to become more
common as the climate continues to warm, increasing
stress on lower-elevation tree species. Photo credit: Marc
This level of tree mortality in the Sierra Nevada is un-
Meyer, U.S. Forest Service.
precedented in recorded history.30,31 In some of the most
heavily impacted areas, 70% of trees died in a single year (Figure 6.2). Much of this mortality was attributed to
the western pine beetle colonizing ponderosa pine, but other tree and shrub species were also affected. Some
forests once dominated by ponderosa pine are now dominated by incense cedar. This change in stand structure
and composition has increased the likelihood of high-intensity surface fires and large wildfires.31 In general,
widespread tree mortality can alter local hydrology (with more water availability but also higher peak flows) and
negatively affect ecosystem services (for example, decreased timber supply and decreased recreation opportu-
nities), effects that will persist for many years.2,32,33
6 | Forests
Case Study: Increased Wildfire Risk in the Southeastern United States

Southeastern landscapes are dominated by private lands and relatively high human populations, so changes in
social behavior (for example, human-caused fire ignitions), policy (for example, fire suppression), and climate
can affect wildfire activity.27 Modeling studies suggest that the southeastern United States will experience
increased fire risk and a longer fire season.34,35 Although projections vary by state and ecoregion,36 on average,
the annual area burned by lightning-ignited wildfire is expected to increase by at least 30% by 2060, whereas
human-ignited wildfire is expected to decrease slightly due to changes in factors driving human-ignited wild-
fire, including projected losses of forestland and increased efforts to suppress and prevent wildfires. Although
native vegetation is well-adapted to periodic wildfire, most people living near wildlands are not. More frequent
and larger wildfires, combined with increasing development at the wildland–urban interface (where people
live in and near forested areas), portend increasing risks to property and human life. For example, a prolonged
dry period in the southern Appalachian region in 2016 resulted in widespread wildfires that caused 15 deaths
and damaged or destroyed nearly 2,500 structures in Gatlinburg, Tennessee (Figure 6.3). In a warmer climate,
increased fire frequency will damage local economies and degrade air quality in the Southeast.
Fire Damage in Gatlinburg, Tennessee

Figure 6.3: In autumn 2016, a prolonged dry period and arson in the southern Appalachian region resulted in 50 major
wildfires that burned over 100,000 acres in 8 states, caused 15 deaths, and damaged or destroyed nearly 2,500 structures in
Gatlinburg, Tennessee. If drought or prolonged dry periods increase in this region as expected, fire risk will increase in both
forests and local communities. Photo credit: Flickr user highlander411 (CC BY 2.0).
6 | Forests
Key Message 1 the resilience of these ecosystems depends

on three factors: 1) continued presence of
Ecological Disturbances and fire-adapted species, 2) fire intensity (the
Forest Health amount of heat energy released) and frequency
of future fires, and 3) societal responses to
It is very likely that more frequent extreme
increased fires. A century of fire exclusion in
weather events will increase the frequency fire-prone forest ecosystems in the United
and magnitude of severe ecological distur- States (especially lower-elevation ponderosa
bances, driving rapid (months to years) and pine forests and mixed conifer forests in dry
often persistent changes in forest structure locations in the West) has created landscapes
and function across large landscapes. It is of dense forests with high flammability and
also likely that other changes, resulting from heavy surface and canopy fuel loads (combus-
gradual climate change and less severe tible dead and live vegetation).37 Over the past
disturbances, will alter forest productivity 20 years, a warm, dry climate has increased
and health and the distribution and abun- the area burned across the Nation.38 Large,
dance of species at longer timescales (de- intense wildfires in some locations39 (Figure
cades to centuries). 6.4) have been difficult to suppress, increasing
risk to property and lives, including those of
Rapid Forest Change—Wildfire firefighters.40,41 The cost of fire suppression
Most fire-prone forests (forests that are likely has also increased over time, partially driven
to burn at least once every few decades) have by the high cost of protecting property in the
the ability to persist as more fires occur, but wildland–urban interface.42,43
Wildfires—Changes in Area Burned and Cost
Figure 6.4: This figure shows the annual wildfire area burned in the United States (red) and the annual federal wildfire suppression
expenditures (black), scaled to constant 2016 U.S. dollars (Consumer Price Index deflated). Trends for both area burned and
wildfire suppression costs indicate about a fourfold increase over a 30-year period. Source: U.S. Forest Service.
6 | Forests
The duration of the season during which topography, fuel accumulation (as affected by
wildfires occur has increased throughout the plant growth and frequency of disturbances),
western United States as a result of increased and efforts to suppress and prevent fires.54,55
temperatures44,45 and earlier snowmelt.46,47
Increased vapor pressure deficit (Ch. 21: Mid- Wildfire risk can be reduced in low-elevation,
west, Figure 21.3)48 and reduced summer pre- dry conifer forests in the West and conifer
cipitation49 have deepened summer droughts forests in the South by reducing stand density
in the West and thus increased wildfire risk.50 (thinning), using prescribed burning, and
By the middle of this century, the annual letting some fires burn if they will not affect
area burned in the western United States people. Frequent prescribed burning in
could increase 2–6 times from the present, fire-prone and fire-dependent (forests that
depending on the geographic area, ecosystem, require fire to maintain structure and function)
and local climate.51,52 An increase in the area southern forests has been a socially accepted
burned, however, does not necessarily trans- practice for decades, illustrating how wildfire
late to negative impacts to ecosystems (Figure risk can be reduced. However, health risks
6.5). As the spatial extent of wildfires increases, from smoke produced by prescribed burning
previously burned areas will in some cases are a growing concern in the wildland–urban
provide fuel breaks that influence the pattern, interface (see Ch. 19: Southeast for additional
extent, and severity (the degree to which fire discussion about fire in the southeastern
causes vegetation damage and mortality) of United States and Ch. 13: Air Quality, KM 2 on
future fires.53 Future wildfire regimes will be the effects of wildfires on health).56
determined not only by climate but also by
Area Burned by Large Wildfires
Figure 6.5: This figure illustrates the area burned by large wildfires (greater than 1,000 acres in the western United States and
greater than 500 acres in the eastern United States) for 1984–2014. Although the area with moderate-to-high burn severity
(amount of fire damage to the forest canopy) has increased in recent decades, it has not changed as a proportion of the total
area burned (severity does vary across regions). Increases in the areas of severely burned forests will have implications for
ecosystem processes, such as tree regeneration57,58,59 and ecosystem services, including timber production, water quality, and
recreation. Source: redrawn from EPA 2016.60
6 | Forests
Rapid Forest Change—Insects and The northward expansion of the hemlock

Pathogens woolly adelgid, a nonnative species that attacks
Climate change is expected to increase the eastern hemlock, has been facilitated by higher
effects of some insect species in U.S. for- minimum winter temperatures.71 Similarly, the
ests23,61,62 but reduce the effects of others.63 range of mountain pine beetles is expanding
For example, drought increases populations of with warming; new breeding populations
some defoliating insect species64 but decreases are now found in parts of the western plains
populations of other defoliators.65 In some and in jack pine in boreal forests in Alberta,
cases, fire exclusion in fire-prone forests has Canada.24,72,73 Mountain pine beetle populations
exacerbated the effects of insects by increasing are also expanding in high-elevation forests of
forest density, thus reducing tree vigor (the the western United States, affecting whitebark
capacity of a tree to resist stress) and resis- pine and other high-elevation pine species.4,23
tance to insect attack.3 Higher damage from Whitebark pine serves as a keystone species
native insects on trees with reduced vigor is that quickly establishes after a disturbance
expected to be one of the biggest effects of a and provides critical food sources for birds
warmer climate. Altered thermal conditions, and mammals. Whitebark pine is expected to
including varying temporal patterns, will suffer significant mortality in the future due to
disrupt some insect life cycles, causing season- the combined effects of white pine blister rust,
al mismatches between insect species and tree mountain pine beetles, and a warmer climate.74
hosts in some systems.66
Fungal pathogens, especially those that
Over the past 30 years, tree mortality caused depend on stressed plant hosts for coloni-
by bark beetles in the western United States zation, are expected to perform better and
has exceeded tree mortality caused by wildfire,2 have greater effects on forests as a result of
raising concerns about the sustainability of some climate change.63,75,76 For example, increasing
western forests to provide ecological goods and annual temperatures and precipitation in
services over time.67,68 Bark beetle epidemics in portions of New England have provided ideal
forests with commercially valuable tree species conditions for outbreaks of leaf diseases in
can negatively affect timber prices and the eastern white pine,77 whereas the effects of
economic well-being of forest landowners and some pathogens directly affected by climate
wood processors.69 Many bark beetle outbreaks (such as needle blights) are typically reduced
have been associated with drought and elevated in areas with decreased precipitation.75 Timing
temperature.23,63 Recently, western pine beetles of pathogen life cycles relative to seasonal
contributed to the mortality of 129 million trees changes in temperature and precipitation
weakened by a period of severe drought in will be critical in determining where and how
California (see Case Study “Large-Scale Tree Mor- damage might change.
tality”). The southern pine beetle is the only bark
beetle species in the eastern United States that Insect and disease outbreaks often interact
causes extensive tree mortality. Although little with other disturbances, compounding their
evidence exists for drought-caused outbreaks of potential effects on ecosystem services. For
this beetle,63 a recent increase in its range into example, in lodgepole pine forests attacked by
the northeastern United States, facilitated by mountain pine beetles, the intensity of surface
increasing winter temperatures, now threatens and crown fires increases in stands impacted
pine barrens in New York and Massachusetts.70 by outbreaks, but typically for less than 10
years (e.g., Page and Jenkins 2007, Hicke et
6 | Forests
al. 2012, Jenkins et al. 201478,79,80). Beetles have nitrogen and carbon cycling,85 with feedbacks
minimal effects on fire severity in some loca- that may impact forest productivity.86
tions due to variability in topography, fuels, and
fire weather.81 A recent study in California in The direct effects of climate change on tree
areas heavily affected by drought and western mortality and forest health will likely be
pine beetles (see Case Study “Large-Scale Tree obscured by the slow response times of long-
Mortality”) reported a greater potential for lived tree species.87 In some cases, climate-
large-scale wildfires driven by the amount and related stresses weaken trees, predisposing
continuity of combustible woody material from them to additional stresses.88 Variability in the
dying trees.31 drought response of tree species (for example,
due to differences in hydraulic characteristics)
Long-Term Forest Change is expected to influence how some forests
Forests that frequently run out of water deal with water stress.89 A lagged response and
stored in the soil during the growing season variability among species can make it difficult
are considered water limited, whereas forests to attribute growth reductions to episodic
where the growing season length or produc- drought, and growth reductions can persist
tivity rate is limited by snowpack and cool for years.7,90,91 For species in which seed crops
temperatures are considered energy limited. depend on resources stored over several
A warmer climate will generally decrease tree growing seasons, reproductive responses are
growth in water-limited forests (many semiarid likely to lag behind climatic variation.92
and low-elevation forests in the western Unit-
ed States) but may increase growth in some The rate of climate warming will influence the
energy-limited forests (the majority of forests rate and magnitude of potential changes in
in the eastern United States and coastal Alaska forest health, competition for resources among
and high-mountain forests with short growing tree species, structure, and function, affecting
seasons).6,82 Experimental evidence shows that the growth and distribution of some tree
elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) species.10,11 Negative effects on some species
can increase tree growth (especially where can benefit other species, and reorganization
soil nutrients are adequate), but it is uncertain and changes in the structure of forest com-
whether this increase will occur in mature munities depend on the capacity of locally
forests or will continue as younger forests adapted populations to occupy new areas that
age.83 Positive effects of CO2 on growth will be become suitable as a result of climate change.
negated in some species and locations (such For example, warming in the coastal region
as near urban areas) by air pollutants such as of the southern United States may result in
ground-level ozone (not the protective layer of the replacement of salt grass with mangrove
ozone high in the atmosphere), where concen- forests (see Ch. 19: Southeast for additional
trations of those pollutants are high enough information on mangrove forests).93
to cause toxic effects in plants.84 Drought and
extreme temperatures can cause heat- Canopy phenology (seasonal patterns of
related stress in vegetation, in turn reducing leaf emergence and flowering) responds to
forest productivity and reducing tree vigor.7,8 annual-to-decadal variation in climate,94,95 and
Although the effects are complex and variable evidence exists that changes in canopy phenol-
among forests, warming and elevated CO2 can ogy are contributing to altered species ranges
also impact below-ground processes, such as and potential increases in water and nutrient
limitations.96 Some studies report shifts in
6 | Forests
elevation ranges of terrestrial plant species Forest Carbon Dynamics

in general,97,98,99 whereas many of the studies Forest productivity (Key Message 1) is one of
that focus on tree species do not.100,101,102,103 If many factors that determine carbon storage
large-scale latitudinal shifts in tree distribu- potential.109 Typically, soil carbon is the largest
tions are occurring, they are ambiguous at and most stable carbon pool in forest eco-
present;10,104 however, some evidence suggests systems,14,110,111,112 but increased above-ground
that some boreal species are shifting poleward biomass production in forests is not necessarily
as reproduction fails on the southern edge of accompanied by higher soil carbon content. In
their range.105 some locations, heavy rainfall events will result
in flood-related tree mortality, leading to soil
Key Message 2 erosion and losses of particulate and dissolved
organic carbon from forests.113 Increased
Ecosystem Services disturbances such as harvesting, wildfire, and
It is very likely that climate change will insect and disease damage can also release
carbon stored in soils, especially where multi-
decrease the ability of many forest eco-
ple disturbances occur over a short time span
systems to provide important ecosystem
(Figure 6.6).114
services to society. Tree growth and
carbon storage are expected to decrease
The fate of carbon in forests depends, in large
in most locations as a result of higher part, on the type, extent, frequency, and sever-
temperatures, more frequent drought, ity of the disturbance.114,115 Severe disturbances,
and increased disturbances. The onset such as stand-replacing wildfire, typically
and magnitude of climate change effects result in the immediate release of carbon to
on water resources in forest ecosys- the atmosphere,32 a reduction in stand produc-
tems will vary but are already occurring tivity, the transfer of carbon from live to dead
in some regions. pools, and an increase in decomposition.114,115
Productivity will gradually increase following a
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment106 disturbance, and decomposition will decrease
defines four categories of ecosystem services: as the forest recovers. The abrupt release
supporting, provisioning, regulating, and of carbon after a disturbance transitions to
cultural. Recent studies have focused on defin- net carbon uptake through forest regrowth.
ing and quantifying the full range of services However, the full effect of the disturbance on
provided by forests including recreation, atmospheric CO2 depends on the timing of
wildlife habitat, biodiversity, cultural values, disturbance-induced CO2 releases. Although
and non-timber forest products.107,108 Here, we carbon storage in biomass will increase in areas
focus on climate change effects on two of the where tree growth rates rise, those increases
most important forest-based services: forest will be small compared to the reduced storage
carbon dynamics (regulating and provisioning) that occurs in response to more disturbances.18
and forest water resources (regulating and
provisioning). (For additional discussion on the
effects of climate on ecosystem services, see
Ch. 7: Ecosystems and the regional chapters.)
6 | Forests
Forest Disturbances Across the United States
Figure 6.6: This figure shows the cumulative area of disturbed forestland across the contiguous United States for 1984–2014.
The small boxes illustrate how disturbances differ regionally. Data for Alaska, Hawai‘i and the U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands, and
the U.S. Caribbean regions were not shown on the original map from the published source. Source: adapted from Williams et
al. 2016.114
Economic and population growth will affect forest where there was no previous tree cover)
land-use decisions that influence forest-based and reforestation, for a net gain of forest area
carbon storage. Over the last several decades, of 0.09% per year (679,000 acres).14 Gains occur
conversion of forestland to other land uses has mostly through a transition from grasslands
contributed to CO2 emissions,14,116 and this trend and croplands to shrublands, woodlands, and
is likely to continue, although this is among the forests, and losses occur mostly in urban areas
most significant sources of uncertainty in the (see Ch. 5: Land Changes for details on forest
forest carbon sink in the United States.18,117,118 land-use trends).14 While some individual states
The current (2017) U.S. deforestation rate (the have lost forestland, overall, each region of the
conversion from forest to nonforest land use) United States (for example, northern, southern,
of 0.12% per year is more than offset by forest Rocky Mountain, and Pacific coast) has gained
gain from afforestation (the establishment of a forestland area over the past 20 years.14,16
6 | Forests
Net storage of atmospheric carbon by forests approximately 8% of the established global

(742 teragrams, or Tg, of CO2 per year from forest sink (189 Tg carbon per year).120 In the
1990 to 2015) has offset approximately 11% United States, 76% of the annual domestic har-
of U.S. CO2 emissions.14 Assuming no policy vest input to the wood products pool in 2015
intervention—and accounting for land-use (110 Tg carbon per year) was offset by release
change, management, disturbance, and forest processes (84 Tg carbon per year), resulting in
aging—U.S. forests are projected to continue an increase in wood products of 26 Tg carbon.14
to store carbon but at declining rates (35% less
than 2013 levels by 2037) as a result of both Forest Water Resources
land use and lower CO2 uptake as forests grow Forested watersheds provide water for munic-
older.15,16,17,18,42 ipal water supplies, agricultural irrigation, rec-
reation, spiritual values, and in-stream flows
Although forest area has increased over the for aquatic ecosystems. Changes in snowfall
last few decades (Ch. 5: Land Changes, Figure amount, timing, and melt dynamics are
5.1), this trend is projected to level off by 2030, affecting water availability and stream water
then decline gradually as human population quality. In the western United States (especially
expands and afforestation on agricultural the Pacific Northwest), less precipitation is
lands slows,18,42 with more rapid leveling in the falling as snow and more as rain in winter
West compared to the East. However, carbon months, leading to a longer and drier summer
accumulation in surface soils (at depths of 0–4 season (Ch. 24: Northwest).121 Persistence of
inches) resulting from reforestation activities winter snowpacks has also decreased in the
can help mitigate declining carbon storage in northeastern United States over the last few
U.S. forests over the long term. Surface soils decades, with more mid-winter thaws (Ch. 18:
in reforested areas are currently accumulating Northeast). Changing snowmelt patterns are
13–21 Tg carbon per year, with the potential to likely to alter snowmelt contributions to the
accumulate hundreds more Tg of carbon within flushing of soil nutrients into streams in both
a century.112,119 western122 and eastern forests.123
Economic and population trends will affect Forest watersheds moderate the effects of
national and global production and consump- extreme climate events such as drought and
tion of wood products, which can temporarily heavy rainfall, thus minimizing downstream
store carbon. The storage of carbon in and impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human com-
emissions from wood products contribute to munities such as flooding, low flows, and reduced
carbon stores and exchanges with the atmo- water quality. Disturbances and periodic droughts
sphere; the carbon stored in wood products affect streamflow and water quality,12,13,124 as do
accumulates as wood is harvested from forests changes in forest structure that are influenced by
at a rate that exceeds carbon releases from climatic variability and change, such as leaf area
the decay and combustion of wood products and species distribution and abundance.33 For
already in use. The harvested wood products example, drought-related bark beetle outbreaks
pool alone is not a direct sink for atmospheric and wildfire kill trees, reducing water uptake and
carbon, but losses from the pool are a direct evapotranspiration and potentially increasing
source of atmospheric carbon. Although the water yield,125 although water yield can decrease
contribution of harvested wood products if regrowing species have higher water-use
is uncertain, the worldwide net surplus of demands than did the insect-
carbon in wood products is estimated to be or fire-killed trees.126
6 | Forests
Wildfires can also increase forest openness components (such as wildfire exposure) and
by killing midstory and overstory trees, which second identifying forest management activi-
promotes earlier snowmelt from increased ties that can be implemented to reduce risk.52
solar radiation. This, in turn, leads to more However, identifying how climate change will
winter runoff and exacerbates dry summer alter biophysical conditions (risk assessment)
conditions, especially in cooler interior moun- and how forest management organizations will
tains.127,128 In warmer forests, typically in wetter respond to future changes (risk management)
climates where wildfire is currently rare, is complex. Describing operational (technical
increased forest openness can in some cases and financial), economic, and political risks is
increase snowpack retention.129 Wildfires can even more difficult. Furthermore, identifying
increase erosion and sediment in western U.S. interactions among all types of risks at regional
rivers,130 as well as reduce tree cover adjacent and local scales will provide land managers
to rivers and streams and thus increase stream with the information needed to manage forests
temperature.131,132 In eastern U.S. forests, the sustainably across large landscapes (Ch. 28:
proportion of tree species with moderate water Adaptation).137 To that end, recent nationwide
demands (mesophytes) is increasing in many projects examining site-specific adaptation
areas as a result of fire exclusion, less logging practices help inform forest management
and other disturbances, and possibly a warmer focused on maintaining long-term productivity
climate.133,134 Mesophytes transpire more water under future climatic conditions.20,138,139
than other species occupying the same area,
thus reducing streamflow.135,136 Assessments of climate change effects and
adaptation actions are being incorporated into
Key Message 3 resource management plans, environmental
assessments, and monitoring programs of
Adaptation public agencies.42,140 Adaptation planning tools
Forest management activities that in- and compendia of adaptation options for forest
resources are now institutionalized in public
crease the resilience of U.S. forests to
land management in much of the United States
climate change are being implemented,
(Ch. 28: Adaptation).19,141 Adaptation actions are
with a broad range of adaptation op-
also being implemented by Native American
tions for different resources, including
tribes and communities, with an emphasis on
applications in planning. The future culturally significant forest resources, such as
pace of adaptation will depend on flora and fauna, which in turn affect sovereign-
how effectively social, organizational, ty and economic sustainability.142 Adaptation
and economic conditions support is especially urgent for Native American
implementation. communities affiliated with reservations where
place-based traditional medicine, ceremonial
Decisions about how to address climate change practices, and methods of gathering and hunt-
in the context of forest management need ing for food contribute to cultural identity (Ch.
to be informed by a better understanding of 15: Tribes).143
the risks of potential climate change effects
on natural resources and the organizations Implementing climate change adaptation
that manage those resources. For example, measures in forest management requires an
risks posed by ecological disturbances can be understanding of the effects of climate change
reduced by first assessing specific disturbance on different types of forests, forest-related
6 | Forests
Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Options
Figure 6.7: To increase resilience to future stressors and disturbances, examples of adaptation options (risk management) have
been developed in response to climate change vulnerabilities in forest ecosystems (risk assessment) in the Pacific Northwest.
Vulnerabilities and adaptation options vary among different forest ecosystems. Sources: U.S. Forest Service; University of
Washington.
enterprises, and resource-dependent com- resistance and resilience to fire, insects, and
munities (Figure 6.7). However, even if the drought.148 Implementation of these practices
potential magnitude and consequences of can be costly, often confront legal and adminis-
climate change are well understood and viable trative barriers,149 and must consider economic
management responses exist, adaptation tradeoffs associated with management of other
measures cannot occur unless management natural resources.55
organizations (on public and private lands) have
the capacity (people and financial resources, Applications of these and other practices
enabled by policy) to implement manage- vary as a function of ownership objectives,
ment responses.144 timber and non-timber wood product markets,
policy constraints, and setting (urban, rural, or
Fortunately, many ongoing practices that wildland–urban interface). For example, land
address existing forest management needs— managers in regions where short-rotation,
stand density management, surface fuel reduc- plantation management of forest tree species
tion, control of invasive species, and aquatic is common (for example, private lands in the
habitat restoration—contribute to the goal of southern United States and Pacific Northwest)
increasing resilience to higher temperatures, have the flexibility to periodically shift species
drought, and disturbances.127,144,145,146,147 Fuel and genetic composition of trees to align with
treatments across large landscapes have the future changes in climate and disturbance
additional benefit of creating defensible space regimes.150 A significant amount of adaptation
for fire suppression, especially near the wild- has occurred on public lands, including actions
land–urban interface. Resource managers are that reduce climate-related risks to water
evaluating how these practices can be modified resources such as 1) design of sustainable
and implemented to address future climate forest road systems that take into account
risks.141 For example, forest managers in dry increased flooding hazard, including upsizing
western U.S. forests are considering greater culverts to match projected streamflows; 2)
reductions in stand density to increase forest joint planning and design of fuel treatments
6 | Forests
(including prescribed burning) and watershed

restoration to create resilient terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems;127 3) comprehensive map-
ping of projected stream temperatures to set
priorities for riparian restoration and cold-
water fish conservation;151 and 4) supporting
viable American beaver populations to facilitate
retention of cool water in forested aquatic
systems (Figure 6.8).140
Applying climate change adaptation manage-

ment activities over large areas of forestland
Reintroducing Beavers to Build Climate
will be challenged by projected declines in Resilience
the size of the forest sector workforce and Figure 6.8: Engineering by beavers encourages the slow
receding timber product outputs in some parts release of water to downstream users and keeps water cool for
of the country.42 Declines in the workforce migrating salmon and other aquatic species. Reintroduction of
beavers throughout the western United States is helping to retain
mean fewer skilled workers who can carry out these functions in forested watersheds, increasing resilience to
management actions, although collaborative a warmer climate and reduced snowpack in mountains. Photo
credit: Sarah Koenigsberg, courtesy of The Beaver Believers.
efforts by nongovernmental organizations
are emerging to assist with climate change Acknowledgments
adaptation.152 Low timber product output, the
result of abundant supplies of timber and low Technical Contributors
demand for primary and secondary timber Lawrence E. Band
University of Virginia
products,153 means lower prices for timber,
which have trended downward since the James S. Clark
late 1990s (e.g., Timber Mart-South 2018154), Duke University
thereby providing fewer opportunities to offset
treatment costs with sales of timber removed. Nicolette E. Cooley
As a result, weak timber markets mean reduced Northern Arizona University
incentives for private forest owners to actively
Anthony D’Amato
manage forests in ways that enhance climate
University of Vermont
resilience. However, multiorganization collab-
oration, widespread availability of adaptation Jessica E. Halofsky
options,155,156 and a growing list of examples of University of Washington
on-the-ground implementation bode well for
the future of climate-informed forest manage- USGCRP Coordinators
ment. Flexible management approaches that Natalie Bennett
Adaptation and Assessment Analyst
promote learning and sharing among interest-
ed parties can help accelerate implementation. Susan Aragon-Long
Senior Scientist
Opening Image Credit

California forest: Nathan Stephenson, U.S. Geological
Survey.
6 | Forests - Traceable Accounts
Traceable Accounts
Process Description
Lead authors, chapter authors, and technical contributors engaged in multiple technical dis-
cussions via teleconference between September 2016 and March 2018, which included a review
of technical inputs provided by the public and a broad range of published literature as well as
professional judgment. Discussions were followed by expert deliberation on draft Key Messages
by the authors and targeted consultation with additional experts by the authors and technical
contributors. A public engagement webinar on May 11, 2017, solicited additional feedback on the
report outline. Webinar attendees provided comments and suggestions online and through fol-
low-up emails. Strong emphasis was placed on recent findings reported in the scientific literature
and relevance to specific applications in the management of forest resources.
Key Message 1
Ecological Disturbances and Forest Health
It is very likely that more frequent extreme weather events will increase the frequency and
magnitude of severe ecological disturbances, driving rapid (months to years) and often
persistent changes in forest structure and function across large landscapes (high confidence).
It is also likely that other changes, resulting from gradual climate change and less severe
disturbances, will alter forest productivity and health and the distribution and abundance of
species at longer timescales (decades to centuries; medium confidence).
Description of evidence base

Many ecological responses to climate change in U.S. forests are mediated though disturbance,
because the occurrence and magnitude of most major forest disturbances are sensitive to subtle
changes in climate.1 Published literature since the Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3)
continues to show an increase in the frequency of large (thousands to hundreds of thousands of
acres) ecological disturbances in forests across the United States. There is strong evidence that
these changes, in combination with accumulated fuels, have resulted in larger wildfires in recent
years (the past 10 to 20 years),2,38,39 making them harder to suppress and increasing human health
and safety concerns for nearby communities40 and wildland firefighters.157 Fire suppression costs
continue to increase in response to larger fires and an expanding wildland–urban interface.
Although the increasing size and costs of fighting wildfires are known with high certainty,158
short- and long-term effects on forests vary according to the ability of tree species to survive or
regenerate after wildfire.159 Future fire regimes and their impacts on U.S. forests will be governed
by climate as well as topography, ecosystem productivity, and vegetation adaptations to fire. For
example, altered distribution and abundance of dominant plant species may affect the frequency
and extent of future wildfires (Ch. 29: Mitigation). The potential of an area to reburn (that is, burn
again after experiencing a previous fire) will depend on how the previous fire was suppressed, the
severity of that fire, how rapidly fuel accumulated after the fire, and postfire management activi-
ties.53 These variables create uncertainty in predicting the spatial distribution, number, and sizes
of wildfires in future decades.
The published literature contains strong evidence that insects are causing rapid changes in forest
structure and function across large landscapes. Causal factors are primarily elevated tempera-
tures, droughts, and water stress, which exert indirect effects mediated through host tree species
and direct effects on insects. For example, in western North America, several species of bark
beetles have had notable outbreaks over the past 30 years, and some have exceeded the spatial
extent of what has been previously documented, affecting ecosystem services at broad spatial
scales.3 The spatial extent of recent outbreaks of mountain pine beetles represents an area larger
than the 11 smallest U.S. states combined, and insect outbreak models project increased proba-
bilities of mountain pine beetle population success in the future.23 In addition, evidence suggests
that climate change is expanding the range of bark beetles in both the western and eastern United
States,66,70,71 caused by higher minimum temperatures associated with climate change. For example,
whitebark pine is expected to suffer significant mortality in future decades due to the combined
effects of white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetles, and climate change.74
The magnitude and direction of defoliator responses to climate change vary, limiting our ability
to project the effects of climate change69 and preventing generalizations about climate-related
effects on defoliators, despite their importance throughout the United States. Fungal pathogens
that depend on stressed plant hosts for colonization are expected to perform better and have
greater impacts on forests.63,75,76 In contrast, some pathogens directly affected by moisture avail-
ability (for example, needle blights) are expected to have reduced impact.75
Mounting evidence suggests that some bird and insect populations show changes in distribution
that align with temperature increases in recent decades (Ch. 7: Ecosystems).160,161,162,163 These spe-
cies groups are characterized by short generation times, high mobility, or both. Some evidence
suggests that the rate of climate change is outpacing the capacity of trees and forests to adjust,
placing long-lived tree populations at risk. Species distribution models concur that climate change
can affect suitable habitat,11 although it is unclear if these effects are translating into species range
shifts. Some studies report shifts in elevation ranges,97,98 whereas others do not.100,101,103 In summary,
evidence indicates substantial effects of climate change on forest health but varied capacity for
tree species to relocate as conditions change.
Understanding and predicting the effects of climate change on forests are obscured by the slow
response times of long-lived trees.87 Increasing evidence suggests that climate-related stresses
weaken trees, predisposing them to additional stresses that take many years to be observed,88
and that growth reductions following drought can persist for years.7,90,91 For species in which seed
crops depend on resources stored over several growing seasons, it is likely that reproductive
responses will lag behind climate variation.92 Recent studies in the eastern United States suggest
that changes in tree species composition (such as an increased proportion of mesophytes) over
the past few decades in some forests are contributing to lower streamflow136 and increased vul-
nerability of forests to drought.164 Warming temperatures and changing precipitation are altering
leaf phenology (for example, earlier spring leaf-out and later leaf fall) in some areas, which is likely
to affect forest carbon and water cycling.95,165
Major uncertainties
Although wildfire frequency and extent are very likely to increase in a warmer climate, spatial and
temporal patterns of fire are difficult to project, especially at smaller than regional scales. The
effects of a warmer climate are well known for some insect species (such as bark beetles), but the
effects of long-term thermal changes on most insect species and their community associates are
uncertain. Scientific information on the effects of climate change on fungal pathogens is sparse,
making projections of forest diseases uncertain. It is possible to project that some tree species
will have decreased growth and others increased growth, but the magnitude of growth changes
is uncertain. Finally, species distribution and abundance are likely to change in a warmer climate,
but the magnitude, geographic specificity, and rate of future changes are uncertain.
Description of confidence and likelihood

Published literature and model projections imply high confidence that more frequent extreme
weather events will increase the frequency and extent of large ecological disturbances, driving
rapid (months to years) and often persistent changes in forest structure and function across
large landscapes. Forests are long-lived and inherently resilient to climatic variability, so long-
term monitoring (of, for example, growth and productivity, structure, regeneration, and species
distribution and abundance) will be needed to confirm the direct effects of incremental changes
in temperature. As a result, there is medium confidence that changes resulting from direct (but
gradual) climate change and less severe disturbances will occur in the context of altered forest
productivity, health, and species distribution and abundance that occur at longer timescales
(decades to centuries).
Key Message 2
Ecosystem Services
It is very likely that climate change will decrease the ability of many forest ecosystems to
provide important ecosystem services to society. Tree growth and carbon storage are expected
to decrease in most locations as a result of higher temperatures, more frequent drought, and
increased disturbances (medium confidence). The onset and magnitude of climate change
effects on water resources in forest ecosystems will vary but are already occurring in some
regions (high confidence).

Altered forest conditions caused by a changing climate are likely to influence the quantity
and quality of many of the ecosystem services that humans derive from forests, and climate
change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of natural disturbances in the coming
decades and to reduce forest growth in most places.18 Extreme high temperatures can also cause
heat-related stress in vegetation and exacerbate drought conditions, potentially increasing tree
mortality and reducing forest productivity.7,166 Positive effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) on growth
will be negated in some species and locations by low soil fertility167 and by air pollutants such as
ground-level ozone, where concentrations of those pollutants are high enough to cause toxic
effects in plants.84
Most evidence suggests that increased carbon sinks (caused by higher growth rates and more
forest area in some regions) will not be sufﬁcient to offset higher emissions from increased dis-
turbances and enhanced release of carbon from decomposition in the future.114,168,169,170 U.S. forests
are projected to continue to sequester carbon but at declining rates caused by land-use change
and aging forests.18 In the western United States, the aging of forests, coupled with disturbance
dynamics, is projected to diminish carbon sequestration to negligible levels by around 2050, and
some forests (for example, dry western forests with frequent fire and some eastern hardwood
forests) will likely become a carbon source.18 Younger productive forests in the eastern United
States portend high carbon uptake rates, although harvest-related emissions substantially reduce
the net effect on atmospheric carbon.
Land-use change that increases forest cover (such as cropland converted to forestland) is a major
contributor to reductions in atmospheric CO2,116 but this conversion is expected to slow in the near
future.118 The estimated net carbon flux in the United States associated with forestland conversion
is approximately zero, with gains in forestland constituting +23 teragrams (Tg) of carbon per year
and losses resulting in emissions of −23 Tg carbon per year over the last decade. The estimated
emissions constitute decades, and in some cases centuries, of accumulated carbon within forest
ecosystems, which is abruptly or gradually released to the atmosphere during conversion from
forest to nonforest land. In contrast, gains in forestland represent carbon sequestration only from
new growth of live biomass and the accumulation of newly dead organic matter over the 20 or so
years since the renewal of forest cover.
Economic conditions and population growth will affect national and global production and con-
sumption of wood products, which can temporarily sequester carbon (currently 189 Tg carbon per
year, or 8% of the global forest sink).120 Increases in wood products carbon are contingent on a
sustained or increasing rate of harvest removals of forest carbon or on a shift toward forest prod-
ucts that exist for long periods of time before they are no longer suitable for reuse or recycling. In
the United States, 76% of the annual domestic harvest input to the wood products pool in 2015 (110
Tg carbon) was offset by release processes (84 Tg carbon), yielding a corresponding net increase
in wood products of 26 Tg carbon.14 However, if harvest rates decline (as they did in 2007–2009,
during the last economic recession), net additions to wood products will likely be lower than
emissions from wood harvested in prior years.14 Looking ahead, carbon storage in wood products
is expected to increase by 7–8 Tg carbon per year over the next 25 years.171
Snowfall amount, timing, and melt dynamics are affecting water availability and stream water
quality in the western United States, where less precipitation is falling as snow and more as rain in
winter months, leading to longer and drier summer seasons.121 Furthermore, rapid opening of for-
ests in the western United States by wildfire has caused faster spring snowmelt through increased
solar radiation and decreased reflectivity of radiation from charcoal,128 leading to drier summer
conditions that offset increased water yield following a disturbance.127 The persistence of winter
snowpack in the northeastern United States has declined over the last few decades; mid-winter
thaws have become more common, and snowmelt flushing of mobilized soil nutrients into streams
has become less common, although increased variability in climate–hydrology interactions can
alter flushing.172
Major uncertainties
It is difficult to identify geographically specific changes in forest conditions at fine scales because
of high spatial variability in forest structure and function and variability in projections of climate
change and how it will affect large disturbances (drought, wildfire, insect outbreaks). Uncertainties
about the rate and magnitude of climate change effects on carbon sequestration are moderately
high, because it is difficult to project future trends in forest cover and socioeconomic influences
on forest management (for example, demand for wood products, bioenergy). Although empirical
evidence for young trees indicates that atmospheric enrichment of CO2 can enhance tree growth,
few long-term data on mature trees are available on which to base inferences about long-term
forest productivity.173 Temporal patterns and magnitude of carbon sequestration, especially after
2050, will be affected by uncertainties related to future land-use conversions (from forests to
other uses and vice versa) and the production of wood products.

Because of variability in forest structure and function and species-level variation in adaptive
capacity to climate change, it is difficult to project future changes in forest conditions at smaller
than regional scales. Hence, there is medium confidence about how ecosystem services will be
affected in different forest ecosystems, including effects on tree growth and carbon storage, as a
function of higher temperature, more frequent drought, and increased disturbance. Observations
from recent droughts and changing snowfall/snowmelt dynamics provide high confidence that
climate change effects on water are already occurring in some regions, although the onset and
magnitude of future effects will vary regionally.
Key Message 3
Adaptation
Forest management activities that increase the resilience of U.S. forests to climate change
are being implemented (high confidence), with a broad range of adaptation options for
different resources, including applications in planning (medium confidence). The future pace
of adaptation will depend on how effectively social, organizational, and economic conditions
support implementation (high confidence).

Climate change vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning efforts for forest ecosystems
have been conducted at many locations (for example, forests in the western United States and
upper Midwest) over the last decade.19,140,141,144,174 These efforts have produced a broad range of
adaptation options, including climate-informed practices for forest density management, water
management, road management, and restoration.19,144,175
In general, practices that mitigate stressors in forest and aquatic systems increase resistance (the
ability of a system to withstand a perturbation) and resilience (the ability of a system to return to
a previous state after a perturbation) to climate change.127,144 For example, restoring riparian veg-
etation helps to stabilize stream banks and provides shade to streams, thus helping to moderate
stream temperatures.127 Similarly, culvert replacement under forest roads can improve fish passage
and reduce damage from flooding events.127 Tools are now available to help in the prioritization of
aquatic and riparian habitat restoration.150
There is strong evidence that stand density management can increase forest resistance and
resilience to disturbances, including wildfire and bark beetle infestations in dry forest types. A
growing body of evidence suggests that reducing stand density in most forest types can increase
forest resilience to drought by increasing soil water availability and decreasing competition.146,148,176
Reductions in stand density, combined with hazardous fuel treatments, can increase resilience
to wildfire by reducing wildfire intensity and crown fires in western dry conifer forests and
southern conifer forests.141,145,174 Evidence also suggests that stand density management can reduce
the incidence of bark beetles and subsequent mortality in some coniferous forests (for example,
lodgepole pine forests).177 All of these practices—in addition to “firewise” practices near buildings
and infrastructure on public and private lands 178 and the use of prescribed fire where possible—
improve the resilience of organizations and communities to increased frequency of wildfire.179
Wildfire has been an important disturbance in aquatic ecosystems for millennia,180 and its frequen-
cy will increase in the future. Management responses to changing climate and fire regimes will
need to be developed in the context of how past land use impaired aquatic function. Coordinating
restoration in adjacent riparian and forest habitats can help ensure that beneficial effects of fire
are retained across the aquatic–terrestrial interface.181
Examples of on-the-ground implementation of adaptation options to increase ecosystem

resistance and resilience to climate change are emerging in the scientific literature.138,139,141
However, exploration of potential management actions is more common than on-the-ground
action,18,19,127,140,145,175 suggesting that implementation is still in the early stages.
Major uncertainties
Evidence for the long-term effectiveness of climate change adaptation is derived primarily from
our current understanding of how specific actions (for example, forest thinning, restoration
of riparian systems, conservation of biodiversity) sustain the functionality of terrestrial and
aquatic systems.127 Physical and biological conditions of ecosystems are constantly changing, and
interactions among multiple ecosystem stressors could have unforeseen outcomes on ecosystem
composition, structure, and function. Thus, the long-term effectiveness of adaptation actions for
increasing forest resistance and resilience to climate change is uncertain until a sufficient time
series of monitoring data is available, requiring decades of observations.
The future pace of adaptation and barriers to its implementation are also uncertain, and it is
expected that many forest management challenges will persist in the future. However, new
challenges and barriers may emerge,182 and it is difficult to predict how society and organiza-
tions will respond.

There is high confidence that climate change adaptation planning in forest management is
occurring, particularly in U.S. federal agencies (especially national forests in the western and
northeastern United States) (Ch. 28: Adaptation)19,140,175 and Native American tribes.142 Because of the
limited number of examples in the scientific literature, there is medium confidence that adaptation
planning is progressing to the application stage, where forest management plans are altered and
on-the-ground management activities are implemented to mitigate the effects of climate change.
However, there is high confidence that future progress in climate change adaptation planning and
implementation will depend on social, organizational, and economic conditions.
6 | Forests - References
References
1. Joyce, L.A., S.W. Running, D.D. Breshears, V.H. Dale, 7. Anderegg, W.R.L., C. Schwalm, F. Biondi, J.J. Camarero,
R.W. Malmsheimer, R.N. Sampson, B. Sohngen, and G. Koch, M. Litvak, K. Ogle, J.D. Shaw, E. Shevliakova,
C.W. Woodall, 2014: Ch. 7: Forests. Climate Change A.P. Williams, A. Wolf, E. Ziaco, and S. Pacala, 2015:
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Pervasive drought legacies in forest ecosystems and
Climate Assessment. Melillo, J.M., Terese (T.C.) their implications for carbon cycle models. Science,
Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds. U.S. Global Change 349 (6247), 528-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
Research Program, Washington, DC, 175-194. http:// science.aab1833
dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0Z60KZC
8. Hember, R.A., W.A. Kurz, and N.C. Coops, 2017:
2. Hicke, J.A., A.J.H. Meddens, and C.A. Kolden, 2016: Relationships between individual-tree mortality and
Recent tree mortality in the western United States water-balance variables indicate positive trends in
from bark beetles and forest fires. Forest Science, 62 water stress-induced tree mortality across North
(2), 141-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.15-086 America. Global Change Biology, 23 (4), 1691-1710.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13428
3. Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson,
T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negrón, and J.T. Nowak, 2007: The 9. Raffa, K.F., B. Aukema, B.J. Bentz, A. Carroll, N. Erbilgin,
effectiveness of vegetation management practices D.A. Herms, J.A. Hicke, R.W. Hofstetter, S. Katovich,
for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations B.S. Lindgren, J. Logan, W. Mattson, A.S. Munson,
in coniferous forests of the western and southern D.J. Robison, D.L. Six, P.C. Tobin, P.A. Townsend,
United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 238 (1), and K.F. Wallin, 2009: A literal use of “forest health”
24-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.10.011 safeguards against misuse and misapplication.
Journal of Forestry, 107 (5), 276-277. https://academic.
4. Bentz, B., J. Logan, J. MacMahon, C.D. Allen, M. Ayres, oup.com/jof/article-abstract/107/5/276/4599375
E. Berg, A. Carroll, M. Hansen, J. Hicke, L. Joyce, W.
Macfarlane, S. Munson, J. Negron, T. Paine, J. Powell, 10. Zhu, K., C.W. Woodall, and J.S. Clark, 2012: Failure to
K. Raffa, J. Regniere, M. Reid, B. Romme, S.J. Seybold, migrate: Lack of tree range expansion in response to
D. Six, D. Tomback, J. Vandygriff, T. Veblen, M. climate change. Global Change Biology, 18 (3), 1042-1052.
White, J. Witcosky, and D. Wood, 2009: Bark Beetle http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02571.x
Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and
Consequences. Bark Beetle Symposium; Snowbird, 11. Clark, J.S., A.E. Gelfand, C.W. Woodall, and K. Zhu,
UT; November, 2005. University of Utah Press (for 2014: More than the sum of the parts: Forest climate
USFS), Salt Lake City, UT, 42 pp. https://www.fs.usda. response from joint species distribution models.
gov/treesearch/pubs/43479 Ecological Applications, 24 (5), 990-999. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1890/13-1015.1
5. Ayres, M.P., J.A. Hicke, B.K. Kerns, D. McKenzie, J.S.
Littell, L.E. Band, C.H. Luce, A.S. Weed, and C.L. 12. Kormos, P.R., C.H. Luce, S.J. Wenger, and W.R.
Raymond, 2014: Disturbance regimes and stressors. Berghuijs, 2016: Trends and sensitivities of low
Climate Change and United States Forests. Peterson, streamflow extremes to discharge timing and
D.L., J.M. Vose, and T. Patel-Weynand, Eds. Springer magnitude in Pacific Northwest mountain streams.
Netherlands, Dordrecht, 55-92. http://dx.doi. Water Resources Research, 52 (7), 4990-5007. http://
org/10.1007/978-94-007-7515-2_4 dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018125
6. Marcinkowski, K., D.L. Peterson, and G.J. Ettl, 2015: 13. Vose, J.M., C.F. Miniat, C.H. Luce, H. Asbjornsen,
Nonstationary temporal response of mountain P.V. Caldwell, J.L. Campbell, G.E. Grant, D.J. Isaak,
hemlock growth to climatic variability in the North S.P. Loheide Ii, and G. Sun, 2016: Ecohydrological
Cascade Range, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal implications of drought for forests in the United
of Forest Research, 45 (6), 676-688. http://dx.doi. States. Forest Ecology and Management, 380, 335-345.
org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.025
14. EPA, 2017: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 22. Cal Fire, 2018: Over 129 Million Dead Trees
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015. EPA 430-P-17-001. in California Between 2010–2017 [story map].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal
DC, 633 pp. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/ Fire), Sacramento, CA. http://calfire-forestry.
f i l e s/ 2 0 1 7- 0 2/d o c u m e n t s/ 2 0 1 7 _ c o m p l e t e _ m a p s . a r c g i s . c o m /a p p s/ M a p J o u r n a l/ i n d e x .
report.pdf html?appid=3457736f b0dd45f98d41ab4030ebf048
15. Birdsey, R.A., A.J. Plantinga, and L.S. Heath, 1993: Past 23. Bentz, B.J., J. Régnière, C.J. Fettig, E.M. Hansen, J.L.
and prospective carbon storage in United States Hayes, J.A. Hicke, R.G. Kelsey, J.F. Negrón, and S.J.
forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 58 (1), 33-40. Seybold, 2010: Climate change and bark beetles of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(93)90129-B the Western United States and Canada: Direct and
indirect effects. BioScience, 60 (8), 602-613. http://
16. Oswalt, S.N., W.B. Smith, P.D. Miles, and S.A. Pugh, dx.doi.org/10.1525/Bio.2010.60.8.6
2014: Forest Resources of the United States, 2012: A
Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 24. de la Giroday, H.-M.C., A.L. Carroll, B.S. Lindgren,
2010 Update of the RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. and B.H. Aukema, 2011: Incoming! Association of
WO-91. USDA, Forest Service, Washington Office, landscape features with dispersing mountain pine
Washington, DC, 218 pp. https://srs.fs.usda.gov/ beetle populations during a range expansion event in
pubs/47322 western Canada. Landscape Ecology, 26 (8), 1097-1110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9628-9
17. USDA, 2016: USDA Integrated Projections for
Agriculture and Forest Sector Land Use Land- 25. Trumbore, S., P. Brando, and H. Hartmann, 2015:
Use Change, and GHG Emissions and Removals: Forest health and global change. Science, 349 (6250),
2015 to 2060. U.S. Department of Agriculture 814-818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6759
(USDA), Office of the Chief Economist,
Washington, DC, 24 pp. https://www.usda.gov/ 26. Swanston, C., L.A. Brandt, M.K. Janowiak, S.D.
oce/climate_change/mitigation_technologies/ Handler, P. Butler-Leopold, L. Iverson, F.R. Thompson
Projections2015documentation01192016.docx III, T.A. Ontl, and P.D. Shannon, 2018: Vulnerability of
forests of the Midwest and Northeast United States
18. Wear, D.N. and J.W. Coulston, 2015: From sink to to climate change. Climatic Change, 146 (1), 103-116.
source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2065-2
futures. Scientific Reports, 5, 16518. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/srep16518 27. Balch, J.K., B.A. Bradley, J.T. Abatzoglou, R.C. Nagy,
E.J. Fusco, and A.L. Mahood, 2017: Human-started
19. Swanston, C., M. Janowiak, L. Brandt, P. Butler, S.D. wildfires expand the fire niche across the United
Handler, P.D. Shannon, A. Derby Lewis, K. Hall, R.T. States. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Fahey, L. Scott, A. Kerber, J.W. Miesbauer, and L. Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (11), 2946-
Darling, 2016: Forest Adaptation Resources: Climate 2951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617394114
Change Tools and Approaches for Land Managers,
2nd ed. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-87-2. U.S. Department 28. Young, D.J., J.T. Stevens, J.M. Earles, J. Moore, A. Ellis,
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research A.L. Jirka, and A.M. Latimer, 2017: Long‐term climate
Station, Newtown Square, PA, 161 pp. https://www. and competition explain forest mortality patterns
fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs87-2.pdf under extreme drought. Ecology Letters, 20 (1), 78-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.12711
20. Ontl, T.A., C. Swanston, L.A. Brandt, P.R. Butler,
A.W. D’Amato, S.D. Handler, M.K. Janowiak, and P.D. 29. Paz‐Kagan, T., P.G. Brodrick, N.R. Vaughn, A.J. Das,
Shannon, 2018: Adaptation pathways: Ecoregion and N.L. Stephenson, K.R. Nydick, and G.P. Asner, 2017:
land ownership influences on climate adaptation What mediates tree mortality during drought in the
decision-making in forest management. Climatic southern Sierra Nevada? Ecological Applications, 27
Change, 146 (1), 75-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ (8), 2443-2457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.1620
s10584-017-1983-3
21. Texas A&M Forest Service, 2012: “Texas A&M Forest

Service survey shows 301 million trees killed by
drought.” Newsroom, Sept. 25. http://tfsweb.tamu.
edu/content/article.aspx?id=27436
30. Asner, G.P., P.G. Brodrick, C.B. Anderson, N. Vaughn, 38. Abatzoglou, J.T. and C.A. Kolden, 2013: Relationships
D.E. Knapp, and R.E. Martin, 2016: Progressive between climate and macroscale area burned in
forest canopy water loss during the 2012–2015 the western United States. International Journal
California drought. Proceedings of the National of Wildland Fire, 22 (7), 1003-1020. http://dx.doi.
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, org/10.1071/WF13019
113 (2), E249-E255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1523397113 39. Barbero, R., J.T. Abatzoglou, N.K. Larkin, C.A. Kolden,
and B. Stocks, 2015: Climate change presents increased
31. Stephens, S.L., B.M. Collins, C.J. Fettig, M.A. Finney, potential for very large fires in the contiguous United
C.M. Hoffman, E.E. Knapp, M.P. North, H. Safford, States. International Journal of Wildland Fire. http://
and R.B. Wayman, 2018: Drought, tree mortality, dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF15083
and wildfire in forests adapted to frequent fire.
BioScience, 68 (2), 77-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ 40. Stavros, E.N., J. Abatzoglou, N.K. Larkin, D. McKenzie,
biosci/bix146 and E.A. Steel, 2014: Climate and very large wildland
fires in the contiguous western USA. International
32. Pfeifer, E.M., J.A. Hicke, and A.J.H. Meddens, 2011: Journal of Wildland Fire, 23 (7), 899-914. http://dx.doi.
Observations and modeling of aboveground tree org/10.1071/WF13169
carbon stocks and fluxes following a bark beetle
outbreak in the western United States. Global 41. Liu, Z., M.C. Wimberly, A. Lamsal, T.L. Sohl, and T.J.
Change Biology, 17 (1), 339-350. http://dx.doi. Hawbaker, 2015: Climate change and wildfire risk in
org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02226.x an expanding wildland–urban interface: A case study
from the Colorado Front Range Corridor. Landscape
33. Adams, H.D., C.H. Luce, D.D. Breshears, C.D. Allen, Ecology, 30 (10), 1943-1957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
M. Weiler, V.C. Hale, A.M.S. Smith, and T.E. Huxman, s10980-015-0222-4
2012: Ecohydrological consequences of drought-
and infestation- triggered tree die-off: Insights and 42. USDA Forest Service, 2016: Future of America’s
hypotheses. Ecohydrology, 5 (2), 145-159. http:// Forests and Rangelands: Update to the 2010
dx.doi.org/10.1002/eco.233 Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.
WO-GTR-94. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
34. Liu, Y., S. L. Goodrick, and J. A. Stanturf, 2013: Future Service, Washington, DC, 250 pp. https://www.nrs.
U.S. wildfire potential trends projected using a fs.fed.us/pubs/53212
dynamically downscaled climate change scenario.
Forest Ecology and Management, 294, 120-135. http:// 43. NIFC, 2017: Federal Firefighting Costs (Suppression
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.049 Only) [table]. National Interagency Fire Center
(NIFC), Boise, ID. https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/
35. Terando, A.J., B. Reich, K. Pacifici, J. Costanza, A. fireInfo_documents/SuppCosts.pdf
McKerrow, and J.A. Collazo, 2016: Uncertainty
quantification and propagation for projections of 44. Westerling, A.L., 2016: Increasing western US forest
extremes in monthly area burned under climate wildfire activity: Sensitivity to changes in the timing
change: A case study in the coastal plain of Georgia, of spring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
USA. Natural Hazard Uncertainty Assessment: Society B: Biological Sciences, 371, 20150178. http://
Modeling and Decision Support. Riley, K., P. Webley, and dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0178
M. Thompson, Eds. American Geophysical Union, 245-
256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119028116.ch16 45. McKenzie, D. and J.S. Littell, 2017: Climate change and
the eco-hydrology of fire: Will area burned increase
36. Prestemon, J.P., U. Shankar, A. Xiu, K. Talgo, D. Yang, in a warming western USA? Ecological Applications,
E. Dixon, D. McKenzie, and K.L. Abt, 2016: Projecting 27 (1), 26-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.1420
wildfire area burned in the south-eastern United
States, 2011–60. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 46. Luce, C.H., V. Lopez-Burgos, and Z. Holden, 2014:
25 (7), 715-729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF15124 Sensitivity of snowpack storage to precipitation
and temperature using spatial and temporal analog
37. Keane, R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, C.D. Allen, J.A. models. Water Resources Research, 50 (12), 9447-9462.
Logan, and B. Hawkes, 2002: The cascading effects http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014844
of fire exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems.
Rocky Mountain Futures: An Ecological Perspective.
Baron, J., Ed. Island Press, Washington, DC, 133-152.
47. Gergel, D.R., B. Nijssen, J.T. Abatzoglou, D.P. 56. McKenzie, D., U. Shankar, R.E. Keane, E.N. Stavros,
Lettenmaier, and M.R. Stumbaugh, 2017: Effects of W.E. Heilman, D.G. Fox, and A.C. Riebau, 2014: Smoke
climate change on snowpack and fire potential in consequences of new wildfire regimes driven by
the western USA. Climatic Change, 141 (2), 287-299. climate change. Earth’s Future, 2 (2), 35-59. http://
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1899-y dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000180
48. Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, 2016: Impact of 57. Savage, M. and J.N. Mast, 2005: How resilient are
anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown
western US forests. Proceedings of the National fires? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35 (4), 967-
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/x05-028
113 (42), 11770-11775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1607171113 58. Keane, R.E. and C. Key, 2007: CCE fire regimes and
their management. Sustaining Rocky Mountain
49. Dennison, P.E., S.C. Brewer, J.D. Arnold, and Landscapes: Science, Policy and Management for
M.A. Moritz, 2014: Large wildfire trends in the the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Prato,
western United States, 1984–2011. Geophysical T. and D. Fagre, Eds. Resources for the Future,
Research Letters, 41 (8), 2928-2933. http://dx.doi. Washington, DC, 201-212. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/
org/10.1002/2014GL059576 publication/70160295
50. Littell, J.S., D.L. Peterson, K.L. Riley, Y. Liu, and C.H. 59. Hessburg, P.F., R.B. Salter, and K.M. James, 2007: Re-
Luce, 2016: A review of the relationships between examining fire severity relations in pre-management
drought and forest fire in the United States. Global era mixed conifer forests: Inferences from landscape
Change Biology, 22 (7), 2353-2369. http://dx.doi. patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology, 22 (1),
org/10.1111/gcb.13275 5-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9098-2
51. Litschert, S.E., T.C. Brown, and D.M. Theobald, 60. EPA, 2016: Climate Change Indicators: Wildfires. U.S.
2012: Historic and future extent of wildfires in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington,
Southern Rockies ecoregion, USA. Forest Ecology DC. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/
and Management, 269, 124-133. http://dx.doi. climate-change-indicators-wildfires
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.12.024
61. Fettig, C.J., M.L. Reid, B.J. Bentz, S. Sevanto, D.L.
52. O jima, D.S., L.R. Iverson, B.L. Sohngen, J.M. Vose, C.W. Spittlehouse, and T. Wang, 2013: Changing climates,
Woodall, G.M. Domke, D.L. Peterson, J.S. Littell, S.N. changing forests: A western North American
Matthews, A.M. Prasad, M.P. Peters, G.W. Yohe, and perspective. Journal of Forestry, 111 (3), 214-228.
M.M. Friggens, 2014: Risk assessment. Climate Change http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-085
and United States Forests. Peterson, D.L., J.M. Vose,
and T. Patel-Weynand, Eds. Springer, Dordrecht, The 62. Weed, A.S., M.P. Ayres, and J.A. Hicke, 2013:
Netherlands, 223-244. Consequences of climate change for biotic
disturbances in North American forests. Ecological
53. Parks, S.A., C. Miller, L.M. Holsinger, L.S. Baggett, and Monographs, 83 (4), 441-470. http://dx.doi.
B.J. Bird, 2016: Wildland fire limits subsequent fire org/10.1890/13-0160.1
occurrence. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 25
(2), 182-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF15107 63. Kolb, T.E., C.J. Fettig, M.P. Ayres, B.J. Bentz, J.A.
Hicke, R. Mathiasen, J.E. Stewart, and A.S. Weed,
54. Butry, D.T., J.P. Prestemon, K.L. Abt, and R. Sutphen, 2016: Observed and anticipated impacts of drought
2010: Economic optimisation of wildfire intervention on forest insects and diseases in the United States.
activities. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 19 Forest Ecology and Management, 380, 321-334. http://
(5), 659-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF09090 dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.051
55. Abt, K.L., D.T. Butry, J.P. Prestemon, and S. Scranton, 64. Worrall, J.J., G.E. Rehfeldt, A. Hamann, E.H. Hogg, S.B.
2015: Effect of fire prevention programs on accidental Marchetti, M. Michaelian, and L.K. Gray, 2013: Recent
and incendiary wildfires on tribal lands in the United declines of Populus tremuloides in North America
States. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24 (6), linked to climate. Forest Ecology and Management, 299,
749-762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF14168 35-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.033
65. Jactel, H., J. Petit, M.-L. Desprez-Loustau, S. Delzon, 73. Cullingham, C.I., J.E.K. Cooke, S. Dang, C.S. Davis, B.J.
D. Piou, A. Battisti, and J. Koricheva, 2012: Drought Cooke, and D.W. Coltman, 2011: Mountain pine beetle
effects on damage by forest insects and pathogens: A host-range expansion threatens the boreal forest.
meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 18 (1), 267-276. Molecular Ecology, 20 (10), 2157-2171. http://dx.doi.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02512.x org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05086.x
66. Ramsfield, T.D., B.J. Bentz, M. Faccoli, H. Jactel, and 74. Krist, F.J., J.R. Ellenwood, M.E. Woods, A.J. McMahan,
E.G. Brockerhoff, 2016: Forest health in a changing J.P. Cowardin, D.E. Ryerson, F.J. Sapio, M.O. Zweifler,
world: Effects of globalization and climate change and S.A. Romero, 2014: 2013–2027 National Insect and
on forest insect and pathogen impacts. Forestry: An Disease Forest Risk Assessment. FHTET-14-01. US
International Journal of Forest Research, 89 (3), 245- Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise
252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw018 Team (FHTET), Fort Collins, CO, 199 pp. https://www.
fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_
67. Morris, J.L., S. Cottrell, C.J. Fettig, W.D. Hansen, RiskMap_Report_web.pdf
R.L. Sherriff, V.A. Carter, J.L. Clear, J. Clement, R.J.
DeRose, J.A. Hicke, P.E. Higuera, K.M. Mattor, A.W.R. 75. Sturrock, R.N., S.J. Frankel, A.V. Brown, P.E. Hennon,
Seddon, H.T. Seppä, J.D. Stednick, and S.J. Seybold, J.T. Kliejunas, K.J. Lewis, J.J. Worrall, and A.J.
2017: Managing bark beetle impacts on ecosystems Woods, 2011: Climate change and forest diseases.
and society: Priority questions to motivate future Plant Pathology, 60 (1), 133-149. http://dx.doi.
research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54 (3), 750-760. org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02406.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12782
76. Hersh, M.H., R. Vilgalys, and J.S. Clark, 2012: Evaluating
68. Morris, J.L., S. Cottrell, C.J. Fettig, R.J. DeRose, K.M. the impacts of multiple generalist fungal pathogens
Mattor, V.A. Carter, J. Clear, J. Clement, W.D. Hansen, on temperate tree seedling survival. Ecology, 93 (3),
J.A. Hicke, P.E. Higuera, A.W. Seddon, H. Seppä, R.L. 511-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/11-0598.1
Sherriff, J.D. Stednick, and S.J. Seybold, 2018: Bark
beetles as agents of change in social–ecological 77. Wyka, S.A., C. Smith, I.A. Munck, B.N. Rock, B.L.
systems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16 Ziniti, and K. Broders, 2017: Emergence of white pine
(S1), S34-S43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fee.1754 needle damage in the northeastern United States
is associated with changes in pathogen pressure in
69. Prestemon, J.P., K.L. Abt, K.M. Potter, and F.H. Koch, response to climate change. Global Change Biology,
2013: An economic assessment of mountain pine 23 (1), 394-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13359
beetle timber salvage in the West. Western Journal
of Applied Forestry, 28 (4), 143-153. http://dx.doi. 78. Page, W.G. and M.J. Jenkins, 2007: Predicted fire
org/10.5849/wjaf.12-032 behavior in selected mountain pine beetle infested
lodgepole pine. Forest Science, 53, 662-674. http://
70. Cancelliere, J. 2015: Effects of Minimum Winter dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/53.6.662
Temperatures on Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus
frontalis) Mortality on Long Island, NY [Master of 79. Hicke, J.A., M.C. Johnson, J.L. Hayes, and H.K. Preisler,
Science in Entomology Project]. M.S., Department of 2012: Effects of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on
Entomology, University of Nebraska, 20 pp. wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 271, 81-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.02.005
71. Dunckel, K., A. Weiskittel, and G. Fiske, 2017: Projected
future distribution of Tsuga canadensis across 80. Jenkins, M.J., J.B. Runyon, C.J. Fettig, W.G. Page, and
alternative climate scenarios in Maine, U.S. Forests, 8 B.J. Bentz, 2014: Interactions among the mountain
(8), 285. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f8080285 pine beetle, fires, and fuels. Forest Science, 60 (3),
489-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-017
72. Costello, S.L. and W.C. Schaupp, 2011: First Nebraska
state collection record of the mountain pine beetle, 81. Simard, M., W.H. Romme, J.M. Griffin, and M.G.
Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Turner, 2011: Do mountain pine beetle outbreaks
Curculionidae: Scolytinae). Coleopterists Bulletin, 65 (1), change the probability of active crown fire in
21-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065X-65.1.21 lodgepole pine forests? Ecological Monographs, 81 (1),
3-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/10-1176.1
82. Latta, G., H. Temesgen, and T.M. Barrett, 2009: 90. Bigler, C., D.G. Gavin, C. Gunning, and T.T.
Mapping and imputing potential productivity of Veblen, 2007: Drought induces lagged tree
Pacific Northwest forests using climate variables. mortality in a subalpine forest in the Rocky
Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 39 (6), 1197-1207. Mountains. Oikos, 116 (12), 1983-1994. http://dx.doi.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X09-046 org/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16034.x
83. Norby, R.J., J.M. Warren, C.M. Iversen, B.E. Medlyn, 91. Berdanier, A.B. and J.S. Clark, 2016: Multiyear
and R.E. McMurtrie, 2010: CO2 enhancement of drought-induced morbidity preceding tree death in
forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen southeastern U.S. forests. Ecological Applications, 26
availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of (1), 17-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/15-0274
Sciences of the United States of America, 107 (45), 19368-
19373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006463107 92. Miyazaki, Y., 2013: Dynamics of internal carbon
resources during masting behavior in trees. Ecological
84. Pan, Y., R. Birdsey, J. Hom, and K. McCullough, Research, 28 (2), 143-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
2009: Separating effects of changes in atmospheric s11284-011-0892-6
composition, climate and land-use on carbon
sequestration of US Mid-Atlantic temperate forests. 93. Osland, M.J., N. Enwright, R.H. Day, and T.W. Doyle,
Forest Ecology and Management, 259 (2), 151-164. 2013: Winter climate change and coastal wetland
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.049 foundation species: Salt marshes vs. mangrove
forests in the southeastern United States. Global
85. Melillo, J.M., S.D. Frey, K.M. DeAngelis, W.J. Werner, Change Biology, 19 (5), 1482-1494. http://dx.doi.
M.J. Bernard, F.P. Bowles, G. Pold, M.A. Knorr, and org/10.1111/gcb.12126
A.S. Grandy, 2017: Long-term pattern and magnitude
of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a 94. Buitenwerf, R., L. Rose, and S.I. Higgins, 2015: Three
warming world. Science, 358 (6359), 101-105. http:// decades of multi-dimensional change in global leaf
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aan2874 phenology. Nature Climate Change, 5 (4), 364-368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2533
86. Campbell, J.L., L.E. Rustad, S.F. Christopher, C.T.
Driscoll, I.J. Fernandez, P.M. Groffman, D. Houle, 95. Xie, Y., K.F. Ahmed, J.M. Allen, A.M. Wilson, and
J. Kiekbusch, A.H. Magill, M.J. Mitchell, and S.V. J.A. Silander, 2015: Green-up of deciduous forest
Ollinger, 2009: Consequences of climate change for communities of northeastern North America in
biogeochemical cycling in forests of northeastern response to climate variation and climate change.
North America. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, Landscape Ecology, 30 (1), 109-123. http://dx.doi.
39 (2), 264-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X08-104 org/10.1007/s10980-014-0099-7
87. Walter, J., A. Jentsch, C. Beierkuhnlein, and J. Kreyling, 96. McLauchlan, K.K., L.M. Gerhart, J.J. Battles, J.M.
2013: Ecological stress memory and cross stress Craine, A.J. Elmore, P.E. Higuera, M.C. Mack, B.E.
tolerance in plants in the face of climate extremes. McNeil, D.M. Nelson, N. Pederson, and S.S. Perakis,
Environmental and Experimental Botany, 94, 3-8. 2017: Centennial-scale reductions in nitrogen
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.02.009 availability in temperate forests of the United
States. Scientific Reports, 7 (1), 7856. http://dx.doi.
88. Kukowski, K.R., S. Schwinning, and B.F. Schwartz, org/10.1038/s41598-017-08170-z
2013: Hydraulic responses to extreme drought
conditions in three co-dominant tree species in 97. Kelly, A.E. and M.L. Goulden, 2008: Rapid shifts
shallow soil over bedrock. Oecologia, 171 (4), 819-830. in plant distribution with recent climate change.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2466-x Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 105 (33), 11823-11826. http://
89. Choat, B., S. Jansen, T.J. Brodribb, H. Cochard, S. dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802891105
Delzon, R. Bhaskar, S.J. Bucci, T.S. Feild, S.M. Gleason,
U.G. Hacke, A.L. Jacobsen, F. Lens, H. Maherali, 98. Lenoir, J., J.C. Gégout, P.A. Marquet, P. de Ruffray,
J. Martinez-Vilalta, S. Mayr, M. Mencuccini, P.J. and H. Brisse, 2008: A significant upward shift in
Mitchell, A. Nardini, J. Pittermann, R.B. Pratt, J.S. plant species optimum elevation during the 20th
Sperry, M.Westoby, I.J. Wright, and E. Zanne, 2012: century. Science, 320 (5884), 1768-1771. http://dx.doi.
Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to org/10.1126/science.1156831
drought. Nature, 491 (7426), 752-755. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nature11688
99. Wiens, J.J., 2016: Climate-related local extinctions 107. Deal, R.L., N. Smith, and J. Gates, 2017: Ecosystem
are already widespread among plant and animal services to enhance sustainable forest management
species. PLOS Biology, 14 (12), e2001104. http://dx.doi. in the US: Moving from forest service national
org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001104 programmes to local projects in the Pacific
Northwest. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest
100. Rabasa, S.G., E. Granda, R. Benavides, G. Kunstler, J.M. Research, 90 (5), 632-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
Espelta, R. Ogaya, J. Peñuelas, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, forestry/cpx025
W. Gil, W. Grodzki, S. Ambrozy, J. Bergh, J.A. Hódar,
R. Zamora, and F. Valladares, 2013: Disparity in 108. Sills, E.O., S.E. Moore, F.W. Cubbage, K.D. McCarter,
elevational shifts of European trees in response to T.P. Holmes, and D.E. Mercer, 2017: Trees at Work:
recent climate warming. Global Change Biology, 19 (8), Economic Accounting for Forest Ecosystem Services
2490-2499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12220 in the U.S. South. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-226. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern
101. Bell, D.M., J.B. Bradford, and W.K. Lauenroth, 2014: Research Station, Asheville, NC, 1-117 pp. https://
Mountain landscapes offer few opportunities www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55474
for high-elevation tree species migration. Global
Change Biology, 20 (5), 1441-1451. http://dx.doi. 109. McCarthy, H.R., R. Oren, A.C. Finzi, and K.H. Johnsen,
org/10.1111/gcb.12504 2006: Canopy leaf area constrains [CO2]-induced
enhancement of productivity and partitioning
102. Foster, J.R. and A.W. D’Amato, 2015: Montane forest among aboveground carbon pools. Proceedings of
ecotones moved downslope in northeastern USA the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
in spite of warming between 1984 and 2011. Global of America, 103 (51), 19356-19361. http://dx.doi.
Change Biology, 21 (12), 4497-4507. http://dx.doi. org/10.1073/pnas.0609448103
org/10.1111/gcb.13046
110. Lichter, J., S.A. Billings, S.E. Ziegler, D. Gaindh, R.
103. Máliš, F., M. Kopecký, P. Petřík, J. Vladovič, J. Ryals, A.C. Finzi, R.B. Jackson, E.A. Stemmler, and
Merganič, and T. Vida, 2016: Life stage, not climate W.H. Schlesinger, 2008: Soil carbon sequestration
change, explains observed tree range shifts. Global in a pine forest after 9 years of atmospheric CO2
Change Biology, 22 (5), 1904-1914. http://dx.doi. enrichment. Global Change Biology, 14 (12), 2910-2922.
org/10.1111/gcb.13210 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01701.x
104. Woodall, C.W., K. Zhu, J.A. Westfall, C.M. Oswalt, 111. Domke, G.M., C.H. Perry, B.F. Walters, L.E. Nave,
A.W. D’Amato, B.F. Walters, and H.E. Lintz, 2013: C.W. Woodall, and C.W. Swanston, 2017: Toward
Assessing the stability of tree ranges and influence inventory-based estimates of soil organic carbon in
of disturbance in eastern US forests. Forest Ecology forests of the United States. Ecological Applications,
a n d Ma n a g e m e n t , 2 9 1 , 1 7 2-1 8 0. ht t p : //d x . d o i . 27 (4), 1223-1235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.1516
org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.047
112. Nave, L.E., G.M. Domke, K.L. Hofmeister, U. Mishra,
105. Fei, S., J.M. Desprez, K.M. Potter, I. Jo, J.A. Knott, and C.H. Perry, B.F. Walters, and C.W. Swanston, 2018:
C.M. Oswalt, 2017: Divergence of species responses Reforestation can sequester two petagrams of
to climate change. Science Advances, 3 (5), e1603055 carbon in US topsoils in a century. Proceedings
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603055 of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 115 (11), 2776-2781. http://dx.doi.
106. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems org/10.1073/pnas.1719685115
and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Sarukhán, J.,
A. Whyte, and MA Board of Review Editors, Eds. 113. Frank, D., M. Reichstein, M. Bahn, K. Thonicke, D.
Island Press, Washington, DC, 137 pp. https:// Frank, M.D. Mahecha, P. Smith, M. van der Velde, S.
w w w.millenniumassessment.org/documents/ Vicca, F. Babst, C. Beer, N. Buchmann, J.G. Canadell,
document.356.aspx.pdf P. Ciais, W. Cramer, A. Ibrom, F. Miglietta, B. Poulter,
A. Rammig, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Walz, M. Wattenbach,
M.A. Zavala, and J. Zscheischler, 2015: Effects of
climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle:
Concepts, processes and potential future impacts.
Global Change Biology, 21 (8), 2861-2880. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12916
114. Williams, C.A., H. Gu, R. MacLean, J.G. Masek, and G.J. 123. Pellerin, B.A., J.F. Saraceno, J.B. Shanley, S.D. Sebestyen,
Collatz, 2016: Disturbance and the carbon balance G.R. Aiken, W.M. Wollheim, and B.A. Bergamaschi,
of US forests: A quantitative review of impacts 2012: Taking the pulse of snowmelt: In situ sensors
from harvests, fires, insects, and droughts. Global reveal seasonal, event and diurnal patterns of nitrate
and Planetary Change, 143, 66-80. http://dx.doi. and dissolved organic matter variability in an upland
org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.06.002 forest stream. Biogeochemistry, 108 (1), 183-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9589-8
115. Sommers, W.T., R.A. Loehman, and C.C. Hardy, 2014:
Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and climate: Science 124. Luce, C.H., J.M. Vose, N. Pederson, J. Campbell, C.
overview and knowledge needs. Forest Ecology and Millar, P. Kormos, and R. Woods, 2016: Contributing
Management, 317, 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. factors for drought in United States forest ecosystems
foreco.2013.12.014 under projected future climates and their uncertainty.
Forest Ecology and Management, 380, 299-308.
116. Woodall, C.W., B.F. Walters, J.W. Coulston, A.W. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.05.020
D’Amato, G.M. Domke, M.B. Russell, and P.A. Sowers,
2015: Monitoring network confirms land use change 125. Bearup, L.A., R.M. Maxwell, D.W. Clow, and J.E. McCray,
is a substantial component of the forest carbon sink 2014: Hydrological effects of forest transpiration loss
in the eastern United States. Scientific Reports, 5, in bark beetle-impacted watersheds. Nature Climate
17028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17028 Change, 4 (6), 481-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate2198
117. Hurtt, G.C., S.W. Pacala, P.R. Moorcroft, J. Caspersen,
E. Shevliakova, R.A. Houghton, and B. Moore, 126. Guardiola-Claramonte, M., P.A. Troch, D.D. Breshears,
2002: Projecting the future of the U.S. carbon sink. T.E. Huxman, M.B. Switanek, M. Durcik, and N.S.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Cobb, 2011: Decreased streamflow in semi-arid basins
United States of America, 99 (3), 1389-1394. http:// following drought-induced tree die-off: A counter-
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.012249999 intuitive and indirect climate impact on hydrology.
Journal of Hydrology, 406 (3), 225-233. http://dx.doi.
118. Coulston, J.W., D.N. Wear, and J.M. Vose, 2015: org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.06.017
Complex forest dynamics indicate potential for
slowing carbon accumulation in the southeastern 127. Luce, C., P. Morgan, K. Dwire, D. Isaak, Z. Holden, and
United States. Scientific Reports, 5, 8002. http:// B. Rieman, 2012: Climate Change, Forests, Fire, Water,
dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep08002 and Fish: Building Resilient Landscapes, Streams, and
Managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-290. USDA,
119. Birdsey, R., K. Pregitzer, and A. Lucier, 2006: Forest Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
carbon management in the United States: 1600–2100. Fort Collins, CO, 207 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/
Journal of Environmental Quality, 35 (4), 1461–1469. RMRS-GTR-290
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0162
128. Gleason, K.E. and A.W. Nolin, 2016: Charred forests
120. Pan, Y., R.A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P.E. Kauppi, accelerate snow albedo decay: Parameterizing the
W.A. Kurz, O.L. Phillips, A. Shvidenko, S.L. Lewis, post-fire radiative forcing on snow for three years
J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, R.B. Jackson, S.W. Pacala, A.D. following fire. Hydrological Processes, 30 (21), 3855-
McGuire, S. Piao, A. Rautiainen, S. Sitch, and D. Hayes, 3870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10897
2011: A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s
forests. Science, 333 (6045), 988-93. http://dx.doi. 129. Lundquist, J.D., S.E. Dickerson‐Lange, J.A. Lutz, and
org/10.1126/science.1201609 N.C. Cristea, 2013: Lower forest density enhances snow
retention in regions with warmer winters: A global
121. Mote, P.W., S. Li, D.P. Lettenmaier, M. Xiao, and R. framework developed from plot‐scale observations
Engel, 2018: Dramatic declines in snowpack in the and modeling. Water Resources Research, 49 (10),
western US. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 1 6356-6370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20504
(1), 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0012-1
130. Goode, J.R., C.H. Luce, and J.M. Buffington, 2012:
122. Brooks, P.D. and M.W. Williams, 1999: Snowpack Enhanced sediment delivery in a changing climate
controls on nitrogen cycling and export in seasonally in semi-arid mountain basins: Implications for water
snow‐covered catchments. Hydrological Processes, resource management and aquatic habitat in the
13 (14‐15), 2177-2190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ northern Rocky Mountains. Geomorphology, 139, 1-15.
( S I C I ) 1 0 9 9 -1 0 8 5 ( 1 9 9 9 1 0 ) 1 3 : 1 4/ 1 5 < 2 1 7 7: : A I D - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.021
HYP850>3.0.CO;2-V
131. Isaak, D.J., C.H. Luce, B.E. Rieman, D.E. Nagel, E.E. 138. Janowiak, M.K., C.W. Swanston, L.M. Nagel, L.A.
Peterson, D.L. Horan, S. Parkes, and G.L. Chandler, Brandt, P.R. Butler, S.D. Handler, P.D. Shannon, L.R.
2010: Effects of climate change and wildfire on Iverson, S.N. Matthews, A. Prasad, and M.P. Peters,
stream temperatures and salmonid thermal habitat in 2014: A practical approach for translating climate
a mountain river network. Ecological Applications, 20 change adaptation principles into forest management
(5), 1350-1371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/09-0822.1 actions. Journal of Forestry, 112 (5), 424-433. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-094
132. Holsinger, L., R.E. Keane, D.J. Isaak, L. Eby, and M.K.
Young, 2014: Relative effects of climate change and 139. Nagel, L.M., B.J. Palik, M.A. Battaglia, A.W. D’Amato,
wildfires on stream temperatures: A simulation J.M. Guldin, C.W. Swanston, M.K. Janowiak, M.P.
modeling approach in a Rocky Mountain watershed. Powers, L.A. Joyce, C.I. Millar, D.L. Peterson, L.M.
Climatic Change, 124 (1), 191-206. http://dx.doi. Ganio, C. Kirschbaum, and M.R. Roske, 2017: Adaptive
org/10.1007/s10584-014-1092-5 silviculture for climate change: A national experiment
in manager-scientist partnerships to apply an
133. Nowacki, G.J. and M.D. Abrams, 2008: The demise adaptation framework. Journal of Forestry, 115 (3),
of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern 167-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-039
United States. BioScience, 58 (2), 123-138. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1641/B580207 140. Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, and H.R. Prendeville,
2018: Assessing vulnerabilities and adapting to
134. Pederson, N., A.W. D’Amato, J.M. Dyer, D.R. Foster, climate change in northwestern U.S. forests. Climatic
D. Goldblum, J.L. Hart, A.E. Hessl, L.R. Iverson, S.T. Change, 146 (1-2), 89-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
Jackson, D. Martin-Benito, B.C. McCarthy, R.W. s10584-017-1972-6
McEwan, D.J. Mladenoff, A.J. Parker, B. Shuman, and
J.W. Williams, 2015: Climate remains an important 141. Halofsky, J., D. Peterson, K. Metlen, M. Myer, and V.
driver of post-European vegetation change in the Sample, 2016: Developing and implementing climate
eastern United States. Global Change Biology, 21 (6), change adaptation options in forest ecosystems: A
2105-2110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12779 case study in southwestern Oregon, USA. Forests, 7
(11), 268. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f7110268
135. Brantley, S., C.R. Ford, and J.M. Vose, 2013: Future
species composition will affect forest water use after 142. Voggesser, G., K. Lynn, J. Daigle, F.K. Lake, and
loss of eastern hemlock from southern Appalachian D. Ranco, 2013: Cultural impacts to tribes from
forests. Ecological Applications, 23 (4), 777-790. http:// climate change influences on forests. Climatic
dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-0616.1 Change, 120 (3), 615-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-013-0733-4
136. Caldwell, P.V., C.F. Miniat, K.J. Elliott, W.T. Swank, S.T.
Brantley, and S.H. Laseter, 2016: Declining water yield 143. Abate, R.S. and E.A. Kronk Warner, 2013: Commonality
from forested mountain watersheds in response to among unique indigenous communities: An
climate change and forest mesophication. Global introduction to climate change and its impacts on
Change Biology, 22 (9), 2997-3012. http://dx.doi. Indigenous Peoples. Tulane Environmental Law
org/10.1111/gcb.13309 Journal, 26 (2), 179-195. https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2268164_code1708382.
137. Oppenheimer, M., M. Campos, R. Warren, J. pdf?abstractid=2268164&mirid=1
Birkmann, G. Luber, B. O’Neill, and K. Takahashi,
2014: Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities. Climate 144. Peterson, D.L., C.I. Millar, L.A. Joyce, M.J. Furniss,
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. J.E. Halofsky, R.P. Neilson, and T.L. Morelli, 2011:
Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution Responding to Climate Change on National Forests:
of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report A Guidebook for Developing Adaptation Options.
of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-855. U.S.
Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,
Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Pacific Northwest Research Station, 118 pp. http://
Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr855.pdf
S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White,
Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1039-1099.
145. Peterson, D.L., J.E. Halofsky, and M.C. Johnson, 2011: 154. Timber Mart-South, 2018: The Journal of Southern
Managing and adapting to changing fire regimes Timber Prices. Norris Foundation, Athens, GA. http://
in a warmer climate. The Landscape Ecology of www.timbermart-south.com/
Fire. McKenzie, D., C. Miller, and D.A. Falk, Eds.
Springer, 249-267. 155. Adaptation Partners, 2018: Climate Change
Adaptation Library for the Western United States
146. D’Amato, A.W., J.B. Bradford, S. Fraver, and B.J. Palik, [web tool]. Adaptation Partners, Seattle, WA. http://
2013: Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability adaptationpartners.org/library.php
and climate response in north temperate forest
ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 23 (8), 1735-1742. 156. NIACS, 2018: Adaptation Workbook: A Climate
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-0677.1 Change Tool for Land Management and Conservation
[web tool]. Northern Institute of Applied
147. Clark, J.S., L. Iverson, C.W. Woodall, C.D. Allen, D.M. Climate Science, Newtown Square, PA. https://
Bell, DC Bragg, A.W. D’Amato, F.W. Davis, M.H. Hersh, adaptationworkbook.org/
I. Ibanez, S.T. Jackson, S. Matthews, N. Pederson,
M. Peters, M.W. Schwartz, K.M. Waring, and N.E. 157. Withen, P., 2015: Climate change and wildland
Zimmermann, 2016: The impacts of increasing drought firefighter health and safety. New Solutions: A Journal
on forest dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 24
United States. Global Change Biology, 22 (7), 2329- (4), 577-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NS.24.4.i
2352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13160
158. U.S. Forest Service, 2015: The Rising Cost of Wildfire
148. Sohn, J.A., S. Saha, and J. Bauhus, 2016: Potential of Operations: Effects on the Forest Service’s Non-Fire
forest thinning to mitigate drought stress: A meta- Work. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, DC, 16 pp.
analysis. Forest Ecology and Management, 380, 261- https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-
273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.07.046 Fire-Budget-Report.pdf
149. Laband, D.N., A. González-Cabán, and A. Hussain, 159. Stevens‐Rumann, C.S., K.B. Kemp, P.E. Higuera, B.J.
2006: Factors that influence administrative Harvey, M.T. Rother, DC Donato, P. Morgan, T.T.
appeals of proposed USDA Forest Service fuels Veblen, and F. Lloret, 2018: Evidence for declining
reduction actions. Forest Science, 52 (5), 477-488. forest resilience to wildfires under climate change.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/ Ecology Letters, 21 (2), 243-252. http://dx.doi.
fs/2006/00000052/00000005/art00001 org/10.1111/ele.12889
150. Vose, J.M. and K.D. Klepzig, Eds., 2013: Climate Change 160. Breed, G.A., S. Stichter, and E.E. Crone, 2013:
Adaptation and Mitigation Management Options: A Climate-driven changes in northeastern US butterfly
Guide for Natural Resource Managers in Southern communities. Nature Climate Change, 3 (2), 142-145.
Forest Ecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 492 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1663
151. Isaak, D.J., M.K. Young, D.E. Nagel, D.L. Horan, and 161. Tayleur, C., P. Caplat, D. Massimino, A. Johnston, N.
M.C. Groce, 2015: The cold-water climate shield: Jonzén, H.G. Smith, and Å. Lindström, 2015: Swedish
Delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes birds are tracking temperature but not rainfall:
through the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 21 Evidence from a decade of abundance changes.
(7), 2540-2553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12879 Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24 (7), 859-872.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geb.12308
152. Vaughan, D. and K. Mackes, 2015: Characteristics
of Colorado forestry contractors and their role in
current forest health issues. Forest Products Journal,
65 (5-6), 217-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.13073/
fpj-d-14-00095
153. Wear, D.N., J.P. Prestemon, and M.O. Foster, 2016:

US forest products in the global economy. Journal of
Forestry, 114 (4), 483-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/
jof.15-091
162. Stephens, P.A., L.R. Mason, R.E. Green, R.D. 169. Hicke, J.A., A.J.H. Meddens, C.D. Allen, and C.A.
Gregory, J.R. Sauer, J. Alison, A. Aunins, L. Brotons, Kolden, 2013: Carbon stocks of trees killed by bark
S.H.M. Butchart, T. Campedelli, T. Chodkiewicz, beetles and wildfire in the western United States.
P. Chylarecki, O. Crowe, J. Elts, V. Escandell, R.P.B. Environmental Research Letters, 8 (3), 035032. http://
Foppen, H. Heldbjerg, S. Herrando, M. Husby, F. dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035032
Jiguet, A. Lehikoinen, Å. Lindström, D.G. Noble, J.-Y.
Paquet, J. Reif, T. Sattler, T. Szép, N. Teufelbauer, S. 170. Ghimire, B., C.A. Williams, G.J. Collatz, M. Vanderhoof,
Trautmann, A.J. van Strien, C.A.M. van Turnhout, P. J. Rogan, D. Kulakowski, and J.G. Masek, 2015: Large
Vorisek, and S.G. Willis, 2016: Consistent response of carbon release legacy from bark beetle outbreaks
bird populations to climate change on two continents. across Western United States. Global Change Biology,
Science, 352 (6281), 84-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ 21 (8), 3087-3101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12933
science.aac4858
171. U.S. Department of State, 2016: Second Biennial
163. Ralston, J., W.V. DeLuca, R.E. Feldman, and D.I. King, Report of the United States of America. U.S. State
2017: Population trends influence species ability to Department, Washington, DC, 75 pp. http://unfccc.
track climate change. Global Change Biology, 23 (4), int/files/national_reports/biennial_reports_
1390-1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13478 and_iar/submitted_biennial_reports/application/
pdf/2016_second_biennial_report_of_the_
164. Roman, D.T., K.A. Novick, E.R. Brzostek, D. Dragoni, F. united_states_.pdf
Rahman, and R.P. Phillips, 2015: The role of isohydric
and anisohydric species in determining ecosystem- 172. Argerich, A., S.L. Johnson, S.D. Sebestyen, C.C. Rhoades,
scale response to severe drought. Oecologia, E. Greathouse, J.D. Knoepp, M.B. Adams, G.E. Likens,
179 (3), 641-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ J.L. Campbell, W.H. McDowell, F.N. Scatena, and G.G.
s00442-015-3380-9 Ice, 2013: Trends in stream nitrogen concentrations
for forested reference catchments across the USA.
165. Garonna, I., R. de Jong, R. Stöckli, B. Schmid, D. Environmental Research Letters, 8 (1), 014039. http://
Schenkel, D. Schimel, and M.E. Schaepman, 2018: dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014039
Shifting relative importance of climatic constraints
on land surface phenology. Environmental 173. Gedalof, Z. and A.A. Berg, 2010: Tree ring evidence
Research Letters, 13 (2), 024025. http://dx.doi. for limited direct CO2 fertilization of forests over the
org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa17b 20th century. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 24 (3),
GB3027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003699
166. McDowell, N.G., A.P. Williams, C. Xu, W.T. Pockman,
L.T. Dickman, S. Sevanto, R. Pangle, J. Limousin, J. 174. Peterson, D.L., M.C. Johnson, J.K. Agee, T.B. Jain, D.
Plaut, D.S. Mackay, J. Ogee, J.C. Domec, C.D. Allen, McKenzie, and E.D. Reinhardt, 2005: Forest Structure
R.A. Fisher, X. Jiang, J.D. Muss, D.D. Breshears, S.A. and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western
Rauscher, and C. Koven, 2016: Multi-scale predictions United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628.
of massive conifer mortality due to chronic U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest
temperature rise. Nature Climate Change, 6 (3), 295- Research Station, Portland, OR, 30 pp. http://dx.doi.
300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2873 org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-628
167. Oren, R., D.S. Ellsworth, K.H. Johnsen, N. Phillips, 175. Halofsky, J.E. and D.L. Peterson, 2017: Climate
B.E. Ewers, C. Maier, K.V.R. Schafer, H. McCarthy, Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue
G. Hendrey, S.G. McNulty, and G.G. Katul, 2001: Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-939. USDA,
Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature, 411 Portland, OR, 331 pp. https://www.fs.usda.gov/
(6836), 469-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35078064 treesearch/pubs/53937
168. Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. 176. Bottero, A., A.W. D’Amato, B.J. Palik, J.B. Bradford, S.
Neilson, A.L. Carroll, T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik, 2008: Fraver, M.A. Battaglia, and L.A. Asherin, 2017: Density-
Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to dependent vulnerability of forest ecosystems to
climate change. Nature, 452 (7190), 987-990. http:// drought. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54 (6), 1605-1614.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12847
177. Waring, R.H. and G.B. Pitman, 1985: Modifying 180. Whitlock, C., S.L. Shafer, and J. Marlon, 2003: The
lodgepole pine stands to change susceptibility to role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past
mountain pine beetle attack. Ecology, 66 (3), 889-897. and future fire regimes in the northwestern US and
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1940551 the implications for ecosystem management. Forest
Ecology and Management, 178 (1), 5-21. http://dx.doi.
178. NFPA, 2018: Firewise USA®: Residents Reducing org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00051-3
Wildfire Risks [web page]. National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA. https://www.nfpa.org/ 181. Rieman, B.E., P.F. Hessburg, C. Luce, and M.R. Dare,
Public-Education/By-topic/Wildfire/Firewise-USA 2010: Wildfire and management of forests and
native fishes: Conflict or opportunity for convergent
179. Schoennagel, T., J.K. Balch, H. Brenkert-Smith, P.E. solutions? BioScience, 60 (6), 460-468. http://dx.doi.
Dennison, B.J. Harvey, M.A. Krawchuk, N. Mietkiewicz, org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.6.10
P. Morgan, M.A. Moritz, R. Rasker, M.G. Turner,
and C. Whitlock, 2017: Adapt to more wildfire in 182. Williamson, T.B. and H.W. Nelson, 2017: Barriers to
western North American forests as climate changes. enhanced and integrated climate change adaptation
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the and mitigation in Canadian forest management.
United States of America, 114 (18), 4582-4590. http:// Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 47 (12), 1567-
dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617464114 1576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2017-0252
View publication stats

NCA4 Ch06 Forests Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCA4 Ch06 Forests Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCA4 Ch06 Forests Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Chapter · January 2019

David L. Peterson Grant M. Domke

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert E. Keane Charles Luce

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Federal Coordinating Lead Authors

Technical Contributors are listed at the end of the chapter.

Recommended Citation for Chapter

On the Web: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/forests

California’s multiyear drought killed millions of trees in low-elevation forests.

Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Options

State of the Sector their natural range of historic variation)9 and

Climate Change Effects on Ecosystem Services

Regional Summary primary challenge to maintaining healthy, func-

Case Study: Large-Scale Tree Mortality in the Sierra Nevada

Case Study: Increased Wildfire Risk in the Southeastern United States

Fire Damage in Gatlinburg, Tennessee

Key Message 1 the resilience of these ecosystems depends

Wildfires—Changes in Area Burned and Cost

Area Burned by Large Wildfires

Rapid Forest Change—Insects and The northward expansion of the hemlock

elevation ranges of terrestrial plant species Forest Carbon Dynamics

Forest Disturbances Across the United States

Net storage of atmospheric carbon by forests approximately 8% of the established global

Climate Change Vulnerabilities and Adaptation Options

(including prescribed burning) and watershed

Applying climate change adaptation manage-

Opening Image Credit

Description of evidence base

Description of confidence and likelihood

Description of evidence base

Description of confidence and likelihood

Description of evidence base

Examples of on-the-ground implementation of adaptation options to increase ecosystem

Description of confidence and likelihood

21. Texas A&M Forest Service, 2012: “Texas A&M Forest

153. Wear, D.N., J.P. Prestemon, and M.O. Foster, 2016:

You might also like