Bioclimatic Characterisation of Specific Native Californian Pinales and Their Future Suitability under Climate Change
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Conifers’ Occurrence Data
2.3. Conifers’ Descriptions
2.3.1. Abies magnifica
2.3.2. Abies procera
2.3.3. Picea sitchensis
2.3.4. Pinus albicaulis
2.3.5. Pinus balfouriana
2.3.6. Pinus jeffreyi
2.3.7. Pinus longaeva
2.3.8. Sequoia sempervirens
2.3.9. Sequoiadendron giganteum
2.3.10. Tsuga mertensiana
2.4. Climate Data and Bioclimatic Characterisation
2.5. Future Climate Projections
2.6. Habitat Suitability Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Bioclimatic Characterisation of Selected Taxa
3.1.1. Abies magnifica
3.1.2. Abies procera
3.1.3. Picea sitchensis
3.1.4. Pinus albicaulis
3.1.5. Pinus balfouriana
3.1.6. Pinus jeffreyi
3.1.7. Pinus longaeva
3.1.8. Sequoiadendron giganteum
3.1.9. Sequoia Sempervirens
3.1.10. Tsuga Mertensiana
3.2. Habitat Suitability
3.2.1. Abies magnifica
3.2.2. Abies procera
3.2.3. Picea sitchensis
3.2.4. Pinus albicaulis
3.2.5. Pinus balfouriana
3.2.6. Pinus jeffreyi
3.2.7. Pinus longaeva
3.2.8. Sequoiadendron giganteum
3.2.9. Sequoia Sempervirens
3.2.10. Tsuga Mertensiana
4. Conclusions
- In the qualitative bioclimatic characterisation, we have observed that Abies magnifica, Abies procera, and Pinus jeffreyi occur in some localities with a Temperate submediterranean macrobioclimate, while the rest of the species develop under a Mediterranean macrobioclimate. Many of the qualitative diagnoses of the species studied are consistent with previous studies, while this research has qualified some of the existing ones.
- Through the projection of future bioclimatic conditions, a compelling revelation emerges: California is poised to experience a significant decline in annual ombrothermic index (Io) values, contrasting with a remarkable surge in continentality index (Ic) by the year 2050. Furthermore, widespread temperature increases and precipitation reductions are anticipated, with few exceptions in the north and elevated mountain regions. From a broader perspective, the environmental factors, parameters, and bioclimatic indices that exert the greatest impact on the conifers studied encompass increasing continentality index values, indicative of annual thermal amplitude, as well as declining summer ombrothermic indices Ios2 and Ios3, indicative of increasing summer drought. The overall trend observed for suitable and optimal habitats for these species in the future is a shift towards northern regions and higher altitudes.
- Abies procera and Pinus longaeva are the species poised to lose most of their suitable areas (90%) in the future (2050).
- The conifer species that are projected to retain the largest proportion of suitable habitat in the future, specifically by 2050, are Abies magnifica, with 43% of its current range, and Pinus albicaulis, with nearly half of its present distribution, namely 40%.
- It is abundantly clear that the loss of suitable areas for the Sequoiadendron giganteum is due to the increase in summer drought, which is one of the factors determining its natural habitat. In particular, the intensification of summer droughts will render 79% of its suitable areas unsuitable by mid−century.
- Most of the conifers studied here will endure a reduction in their habitat range in California by 2050.
- Bioclimatology proved to be a relevant approach to understand the ecological responses to changing environmental conditions due to climate change.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Altitude | Tavg | Tmin | Tmax | Pavg | Pp | It | Itc | Io | Ios4 | Ios3 | Ios2 | Tp | Ic | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abies magnifica | ||||||||||||||
Max | 3962 | 16.6 | 7.8 | 27.4 | 1994.2 | 1567.9 | 304 | 321.1 | 15.1 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1996.2 | 23.0 |
Min | 5 | 7.0 | −2.4 | 15.4 | 296.1 | 206.8 | 21.7 | 29.1 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 875.0 | 7.7 |
Mean | 1985.72 | 11.4 | 2.3 | 21.8 | 913.3 | 784.2 | 162.7 | 174.2 | 6.1 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1392.8 | 19.5 |
Q1 | 1557.5 | 9.2 | 0.1 | 19.6 | 669.7 | 556.2 | 93.0 | 103.8 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1134.6 | 19.0 |
Q3 | 2423.25 | 14.1 | 4.4 | 24.6 | 1098.3 | 929.9 | 233.3 | 257.9 | 7.9 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1713.7 | 20.5 |
Abies procera | ||||||||||||||
Max | 2189.0 | 13.4 | 7.0 | 22.1 | 1968.3 | 1586.8 | 275.3 | 275.9 | 14.9 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1609.0 | 20.4 |
Min | 1225.0 | 7.2 | −0.3 | 16.8 | 611.9 | 633.4 | 66.3 | 61.7 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 898.0 | 12.6 |
Mean | 1717.2 | 10.2 | 2.4 | 19.5 | 1406.8 | 1195.0 | 151.3 | 156.1 | 10.4 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1232.0 | 16.9 |
Q1 | 1518.5 | 8.9 | 1.0 | 17.1 | 1179.7 | 971.7 | 122.8 | 127.3 | 8.9 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1091.0 | 14.8 |
Q3 | 1917.2 | 11.6 | 3.7 | 21.4 | 1829.8 | 1410.6 | 189.2 | 196.4 | 13.6 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1392.0 | 19.8 |
Picea sitchensis | ||||||||||||||
Max | 683.0 | 12.5 | 8.1 | 17.2 | 1899.2 | 1793.3 | 283.3 | 279.3 | 14.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1505.0 | 12.2 |
Min | 5.0 | 9.2 | 3.8 | 15.4 | 912.4 | 931.2 | 167.4 | 159.0 | 6.3 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1119.0 | 7.8 |
Mean | 259.8 | 11.1 | 6.5 | 15.8 | 1478.1 | 1376.5 | 241.2 | 234.7 | 10.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1333.0 | 9.4 |
Q1 | 155.0 | 9.7 | 4.6 | 15.5 | 1094.3 | 1082.3 | 186.4 | 177.7 | 7.7 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1178.0 | 8.1 |
Q3 | 369.0 | 11.8 | 7.7 | 15.8 | 1827.6 | 1570.3 | 273.2 | 268.0 | 13.5 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 1418.0 | 10.6 |
Pinus albicaulis | ||||||||||||||
Max | 4067.0 | 16.4 | 7.2 | 27.2 | 1572.6 | 1227.5 | 302.1 | 311.0 | 9.6 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1977.0 | 22.7 |
Min | 149.0 | 6.3 | −3.1 | 16.7 | 276.5 | 242.1 | 3.1 | 8.5 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 884.0 | 17.2 |
Mean | 2839.4 | 9.9 | 0.4 | 20.7 | 794.4 | 666.4 | 108.8 | 123.2 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1233.0 | 20.3 |
Q1 | 2599.0 | 8.2 | −1.0 | 18.6 | 574.2 | 489.1 | 61.2 | 66.2 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 1046.0 | 19.5 |
Q3 | 3158.5 | 11.5 | 1.7 | 22.4 | 1017.4 | 824.9 | 148.8 | 171.9 | 7.6 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1386.0 | 20.7 |
Pinus balfouriana | ||||||||||||||
Max | 4210.0 | 16.5 | 6.9 | 28.2 | 1301.3 | 1072.4 | 303.2 | 316.2 | 9.9 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1975.0 | 23.1 |
Min | 544.0 | 7.5 | −1.8 | 18.1 | 277.0 | 197.5 | 39.4 | 44.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 956.0 | 18.9 |
Mean | 2778.0 | 12.8 | 2.8 | 24.0 | 684.3 | 496.7 | 184.7 | 208.7 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1555.0 | 21.3 |
Q1 | 2293.0 | 10.3 | 1.1 | 21.4 | 432.1 | 299.8 | 123.3 | 136.9 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1257.0 | 20.3 |
Q3 | 3189.0 | 14.8 | 4.1 | 26.5 | 936.8 | 766.3 | 229.9 | 269.2 | 5.5 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1786.0 | 22.4 |
Pinus jeffreyi | ||||||||||||||
Max | 3524.0 | 20.7 | 12.7 | 32.0 | 1941.3 | 1663.2 | 433.9 | 437.1 | 14.7 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 2484.0 | 23.8 |
Min | 5.0 | 4.7 | −4.8 | 15.2 | 87.6 | 90.6 | −47.9 | −41.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 719.0 | 8.2 |
Mean | 1924.9 | 11.9 | 3.3 | 21.6 | 754.3 | 658.6 | 184.7 | 191.1 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1442.0 | 18.4 |
Q1 | 1603.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 18.7 | 507.0 | 448.2 | 92.6 | 100.6 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1108.0 | 17.7 |
Q3 | 2314.0 | 14.4 | 6.4 | 24.0 | 961.2 | 793.8 | 271.7 | 274.1 | 6.5 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1729.0 | 20.0 |
Pinus longaeva | ||||||||||||||
Max | 3556.0 | 22.9 | 9.4 | 36.6 | 195.9 | 168.4 | 416.7 | 529.7 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2752.0 | 27.3 |
Min | 1264.0 | 11.8 | 0.9 | 23.4 | 73.6 | 73.5 | 136.6 | 175.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1456.0 | 22.5 |
Mean | 3121.5 | 14.1 | 2.9 | 26.0 | 144.5 | 133.8 | 199.8 | 246.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1701.0 | 23.2 |
Q1 | 3079.0 | 14.1 | 3.0 | 26.0 | 145.6 | 139.5 | 200.9 | 245.1 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1696.0 | 23.1 |
Q3 | 3156.3 | 14.2 | 3.0 | 26.1 | 146.4 | 139.6 | 202.2 | 247.7 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1702.0 | 23.1 |
Sequoiadendron giganteum | ||||||||||||||
Max | 3236.0 | 17.3 | 9.7 | 28.0 | 1393.1 | 1362.2 | 342.8 | 343.5 | 11.3 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 2079.0 | 21.5 |
Min | 11.0 | 7.9 | −1.5 | 18.0 | 302.7 | 278.0 | 50.2 | 56.2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 1005.0 | 9.5 |
Mean | 1700.6 | 13.0 | 4.1 | 23.1 | 740.1 | 635.3 | 212.8 | 220.0 | 4.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1574.0 | 19.1 |
Q1 | 1425.0 | 11.3 | 2.2 | 21.2 | 525.6 | 442.3 | 160.3 | 166.0 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1360.0 | 18.6 |
Q3 | 2207.5 | 14.9 | 5.8 | 25.3 | 956.5 | 784.8 | 265.0 | 276.2 | 6.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1794.0 | 20.1 |
Sequoia sempervirens | ||||||||||||||
Max | 1098.0 | 18.8 | 12.8 | 25.7 | 1933.3 | 1907.8 | 442.5 | 444.9 | 14.7 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2250.0 | 19.0 |
Min | 5.0 | 8.4 | 0.3 | 15.4 | 340.3 | 340.1 | 90.2 | 92.6 | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1029.0 | 7.8 |
Mean | 330.3 | 13.8 | 8.0 | 19.4 | 909.5 | 888.3 | 297.2 | 294.2 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1656.0 | 11.5 |
Q1 | 155.0 | 12.6 | 7.6 | 17.5 | 600.3 | 608.5 | 278.8 | 274.4 | 3.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 1510.0 | 9.8 |
Q3 | 463.0 | 14.9 | 9.0 | 20.7 | 1092.7 | 1088.1 | 328.3 | 324.6 | 6.8 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1786.0 | 12.5 |
Tsuga mertensiana | ||||||||||||||
Max | 3962.0 | 15.2 | 5.7 | 26.6 | 1862.4 | 1531.3 | 264.8 | 276.8 | 13.9 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1826.0 | 22.4 |
Min | 529.0 | 6.1 | −3.3 | 16.6 | 364.6 | 274.7 | −4.5 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 860.0 | 13.5 |
Mean | 2291.1 | 10.1 | 0.8 | 20.8 | 934.9 | 782.7 | 117.7 | 128.8 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1237.0 | 20.0 |
Q1 | 1844.3 | 8.5 | −0.7 | 18.9 | 706.0 | 612.1 | 74.4 | 82.3 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1058.0 | 19.4 |
Q3 | 2847.0 | 11.1 | 1.8 | 22.3 | 1091.4 | 920.3 | 144.5 | 163.5 | 8.1 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1354.0 | 20.4 |
Bioclimatic units | Abbreviations | A. magnifica | A. procera | P. sitchensis | P. albicaulis | P. balfouriana | P. jeffreyi | P. longaeva | S. giganteum | S. sempervirens | T. mertensiana |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Macrobioclimate | m | ||||||||||
t | |||||||||||
Bioclimate (variants) | mepo | ||||||||||
mepc | |||||||||||
mexo | |||||||||||
mexc | |||||||||||
medc | |||||||||||
teocsb | |||||||||||
Continentality | sho | ||||||||||
smho | |||||||||||
eo | |||||||||||
sc | |||||||||||
sbc | |||||||||||
Thermotype(horizons) | mmei | ||||||||||
mmes | |||||||||||
smei | |||||||||||
smes | |||||||||||
omei | |||||||||||
stes | |||||||||||
Ombrotype(horizons) | ars | ||||||||||
sei | |||||||||||
ses | |||||||||||
sui | |||||||||||
sus | |||||||||||
hui | |||||||||||
hus | |||||||||||
hhi |
References
- Hartmann, D.L.; Tank, A.M.G.K.; Rusticucci, M.; IPCC. IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report-Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; p. 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. 2019, pp. 1–864. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023).
- Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pirani, S.L.; Connors, C.; Péan, S.; Berger, N.; Caud, Y.; Chen, L.; Goldfarb, M.I.; Gomis, M.; Huang, K.; et al. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FrontMatter.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2023).
- Le Roux, J.J.; Hui, C.; Castillo, M.L.; Iriondo, J.M.; Keet, J.-H.; Khapugin, A.A.; Médail, F.; Rejmánek, M.; Theron, G.; Yannelli, F.A.; et al. Recent Anthropogenic Plant Extinctions Differ in Biodiversity Hotspots and Coldspots. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, 2912.e2–2918.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staudt, A.; Leidner, A.K.; Howard, J.; Brauman, K.; Dukes, J.; Hansen, L.J.; Paukert, C.; Sabo, J.; Solórzano, L.A. The added complications of climate change: Understanding and managing biodiversity and ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Pérez, A.; Álvarez-Esteban, R.; Penas, Á.; del Río, S. Analysis of Recent Mean Temperature Trends and Relationships with Teleconnection Patterns in California (U.S.). Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebassi, B.; Gonzalez, J.; Fabris, D.; Maurer, E.; Miller, N.; Milesi, C.; Switzer, P.; Bornstein, R. Observed 1970–2005 Cooling of Summer Daytime Temperatures in Coastal California. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 3558–3573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, D.D. Historical Temperature Trends in Los Angeles County, California. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Cordero, E.C.; Kessomkiat, W.; Abatzoglou, J.; Mauget, S.A. The identification of distinct patterns in California temperature trends. Clim. Chang. 2011, 108, 357–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Pérez, A.; Álvarez-Esteban, R.; Penas, A.; del Río, S. Analysis of recent rainfall trends and links to teleconnection patterns in California (U.S.). J. Hydrol. 2022, 612, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, R.; Novak, L.; Schneider, T. Predicting the Interannual Variability of California’s Total Annual Precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2020GL091465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, M.; Gautam, M. Variability and Trends in Precipitation, Temperature and Drought Indices in the State of California. Hydrology 2016, 3, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, L.; Leung, L.R.; Lu, J.; Gao, Y. Contributions of Extreme and Non-Extreme Precipitation to California Precipitation Seasonality Changes Under Warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019, 46, 13470–13478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cayan, D.R.; Maurer, E.; Dettinger, M.D.; Tyree, M.; Hayhoe, K. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Clim. Chang. 2007, 87, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.B.; Frumhoff, P.C.; Maurer, E.P.; Miller, N.L.; Moser, S.C.; Schneider, S.H.; Cahill, K.N.; Cleland, E.E.; et al. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 12422–12427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, C.D.; Cameron, A.; Green, R.E.; Bakkenes, M.; Beaumont, L.J.; Collingham, Y.C.; Erasmus, B.F.N.; de Siqueira, M.F.; Grainger, A.; Hannah, L.; et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 2004, 427, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, I.-C.; Hill, J.K.; Ohlemüller, R.; Roy, D.B.; Thomas, C.D. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming. Science 2011, 333, 1024–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmesan, C. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2006, 37, 637–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, L.W.; Jenerette, G.D.; Davila, A. The luxury of vegetation and the legacy of tree biodiversity in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 116, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathews, L.E.H.; Kinoshita, A.M. Urban Fire Severity and Vegetation Dynamics in Southern California. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexandre, P.M.; Stewart, S.I.; Mockrin, M.H.; Keuler, N.S.; Syphard, A.D.; Bar-Massada, A.; Clayton, M.K.; Radeloff, V.C. The relative impacts of vegetation, topography and spatial arrangement on building loss to wildfires in case studies of California and Colorado. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Harvey, B.J. Changing wildfire, changing forests: The effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecol. 2020, 16, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hantson, S.; Huxman, T.E.; Kimball, S.; Randerson, J.T.; Goulden, M.L. Warming as a Driver of Vegetation Loss in the Sonoran Desert of California. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2021, 126, e2020JG005942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warter, M.M.; Singer, M.B.; Cuthbert, M.O.; Roberts, D.; Caylor, K.K.; Sabathier, R.; Stella, J. Drought onset and propagation into soil moisture and grassland vegetation responses during the 2012–2019 major drought in Southern California. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 25, 3713–3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syphard, A.D.; Clarke, K.C.; Franklin, J.; Regan, H.M.; Mcginnis, M. Forecasts of habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban growth are sensitive to source of input data. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1882–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avolio, M.; Pataki, D.E.; Jenerette, G.D.; Pincetl, S.; Clarke, L.W.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Gillespie, T.W.; Hobbie, S.E.; Larson, K.L.; McCarthy, H.R.; et al. Urban plant diversity in Los Angeles, California: Species and functional type turnover in cultivated landscapes. Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taha, H. Characterization of Urban Heat and Exacerbation: Development of a Heat Island Index for California. Climate 2017, 5, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vahmani, P.; Ban-Weiss, G.A. Impact of remotely sensed albedo and vegetation fraction on simulation of urban climate in WRF-urban canopy model: A case study of the urban heat island in Los Angeles. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2016, 121, 1511–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellison, D.; Morris, C.E.; Locatelli, B.; Sheil, D.; Cohen, J.; Murdiyarso, D.; Gutierrez, V.; van Noordwijk, M.; Creed, I.F.; Pokorny, J.; et al. Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balfagón, D.; Terán, F.; Oliveira, T.D.R.D.; Santa-Catarina, C.; Gómez-Cadenas, A. Citrus rootstocks modify scion antioxidant system under drought and heat stress combination. Plant Cell Rep. 2022, 41, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, K.N.; O’dean, E.; Knapp, E.E.; Parker, A.J.; Bisbing, S.M. Persistent yet vulnerable: Resurvey of an Abies ecotone reveals few differences but vulnerability to climate change. Ecology 2021, 102, e03525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisonbee, J.; Ossowski, E.; Muth, M.; Deheza, V.; Sheffield, A. Preparing for Long-Term Drought and Aridification. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2022, 103, E821–E827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutz, J.A.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Franklin, J.F. Climatic water deficit, tree species ranges, and climate change in Yosemite National Park. J. Biogeogr. 2010, 37, 936–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarín, A.; Taylor, A.H. Drought triggered tree mortality in mixed conifer forests in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 218, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafson, E.J.; Sturtevant, B.R. Modeling Forest Mortality Caused by Drought Stress: Implications for Climate Change. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheridan, S.C.; Allen, M.J.; Lee, C.C.; Kalkstein, L.S. Future heat vulnerability in California, Part II: Projecting future heat-related mortality. Clim. Chang. 2012, 115, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keen, R.M.; Voelker, S.L.; Wang, S.S.; Bentz, B.J.; Goulden, M.L.; Dangerfield, C.R.; Reed, C.C.; Hood, S.M.; Csank, A.Z.; Dawson, T.E.; et al. Changes in tree drought sensitivity provided early warning signals to the California drought and forest mortality event. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 1119–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jules, E.S.; DeSiervo, M.H.; Reilly, M.J.; Bost, D.S.; Butz, R.J. The effects of a half century of warming and fire exclusion on montane forests of the Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Ecol. Monogr. 2022, 92, 1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McIntyre, P.J.; Thorne, J.H.; Dolanc, C.R.; Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Kelly, M.; Ackerly, D.D. Twentieth-century shifts in forest structure in California: Denser forests, smaller trees, and increased dominance of oaks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 1458–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reichstein, M.; Tenhunen, J.D.; Roupsard, O.; Ourcival, J.-M.; Rambal, S.; Dore, S.; Valentini, R. Ecosystem Respiration in Two Mediterranean Evergreen Holm Oak Forests: Drought Effects and Decomposition Dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 2002, 16, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abatzoglou, J.T.; Williams, A.P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11770–11775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messier, C.; Bauhus, J.; Doyon, F.; Maure, F.; Sousa-Silva, R.; Nolet, P.; Mina, M.; Aquilué, N.; Fortin, M.-J.; Puettmann, K. The functional complex network approach to foster forest resilience to global changes. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, A.P.; Allen, C.D.; Millar, C.I.; Swetnam, T.W.; Michaelsen, J.; Still, C.J.; Leavitt, S.W. Forest responses to increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 21289–21294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goulden, M.L.; Bales, R.C. California forest die-off linked to multi-year deep soil drying in 2012–2015 drought. Nat. Geosci. 2019, 12, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madakumbura, G.D.; Goulden, M.L.; Hall, A.; Fu, R.; Moritz, M.A.; Koven, C.D.; Kueppers, L.M.; Norlen, C.A.; Randerson, J.T. Recent California tree mortality portends future increase in drought-driven forest die-off. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 15, 124040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, B.; Molotch, N.P.; Waliser, D.E.; Fetzer, E.J.; Neiman, P.J. The 2010/2011 snow season in California’s Sierra Nevada: Role of atmospheric rivers and modes of large-scale variability. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 6731–6743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Stevenson, S.; Hall, A.D. Future Warming and Intensification of Precipitation Extremes: A “Double Whammy” Leading to Increasing Flood Risk in California. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas-Martínez, S.; Sáenz, S.R.; Penas, A. Worldwide bioclimatic classification system. Glob. Geobot. 2011, 1, 1–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Río, S.; Álvarez-Esteban, R.; Cano, E.; Pinto-Gomes, C.; Penas, Á. Potential impacts of climate change on habitat suitability of Fagus sylvatica L. forests in Spain. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2018, 152, 1205–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Río, S.; Canas, R.; Cano, E.; Cano-Ortiz, A.; Musarella, C.; Pinto-Gomes, C.; Penas, Á. Modelling the impacts of climate change on habitat suitability and vulnerability in deciduous forests in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuquim, G.; Costa, F.R.C.; Tuomisto, H.; Moulatlet, G.M.; Figueiredo, F.O.G. The importance of soils in predicting the future of plant habitat suitability in a tropical forest. Plant Soil 2020, 450, 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Guo, J.; Shen, X.; Wang, G.; Wang, T. Predicting the Bioclimatic Habitat Suitability of Ginkgo biloba L. in China with Field-Test Validations. Forests 2019, 10, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canu, S.; Rosati, L.; Fiori, M.; Motroni, A.; Filigheddu, R.; Farris, E. Bioclimate Map of Sardinia (Italy). J. Maps 2015, 11, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USDA. Forest Service Silvics of North America. In USFS Handbook 654; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Mlanner, R.; Van Pelt, R.; Loeb, D.; Burns, E.; Bartel, J.A.; Keator, G.; Slaton, M.; Meyer, M.; Gross, S.; Nesmith, J.; et al. Conifers of California. Fremontia 2019, 47, 1–64. [Google Scholar]
- Rundel, P.W.; Arroyo, M.T.; Cowling, R.M.; Keeley, J.E.; Lamont, B.B.; Vargas, P.; Maestre, F.T.; Eldridge, D.J.; Soliveres, S.; Kéfi, S.; et al. Mediterranean Biomes: Evolution of Their Vegetation, Floras, and Climate. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2016, 47, 383–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schierenbeck, K.A. Phylogeography of California: An Introduction; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ammer, C. Diversity and forest productivity in a changing climate. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rundel, P.W. A Neogene Heritage: Conifer Distributions and Endemism in Mediterranean-Climate Ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 7, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephenson, N.L.; Das, A.J.; Ampersee, N.J.; Bulaon, B.M.; Yee, J.L. Which trees die during drought? The key role of insect host-tree selection. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 2383–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas Martínez, A.; Sánchez Mata, S.; del Río, D.; Penas, S.; Rivas Sáenz, Á.; Holland, S.; Barbour, R. Geobotanical Synopsis of California; Sociedad Española de Geobotánica: Gijon, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alpert, H.; Loik, M. Pinus jeffreyi establishment along a forest-shrub ecotone in eastern California, USA. J. Arid. Environ. 2013, 90, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeFalco, L.A.; Esque, T.C.; Scoles-Sciulla, S.J.; Rodgers, J. Desert wildfire and severe drought diminish survivorship of the long-lived Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia; Agavaceae). Am. J. Bot. 2010, 97, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Werner, Z.; Berger, A.; Winter, A.; Tsz, C.; Choi, H.; Advisors, S.; Evangelista, P. Change to Inform Coast Redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens) Habitat Assessments. 2020. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011618 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Lenihan, J.M.; Drapek, R.; Bachelet, D.; Neilson, R.P. Climate Change Effects on Vegetation Distribution, Carbon, and Fire in California. Ecol. Appl. 2003, 13, 1667–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, D.K.; Burchfield, D.R.; de Groff, O.W.; Kitchen, S.G.; Charlet, D.A.; Page, D.H.; Millar, C.I.; Merkler, D.J.; Taylor, G.W.; Ortiz, H.G.; et al. A Comprehensive Distribution Map and Habitat Suitability Model for Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva D.K. Bailey); Brigham Young University: Provo, UT, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Moran, E.V.; Vannest, N.; Aubry-Kientz, M. Modeling the forest dynamics of the Sierra Nevada under climate change using SORTIE-ND. Ann. For. Sci. 2021, 78, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bista, R.; Mohr, M.; Saldaña, D.; Angulo, G.; Chhetri, P.K. Tree-ring climate response of Jeffrey pine in the Cascade Creek Watershed, Northern California. J. For. Sci. 2021, 67, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, T.; Farrelly, N.; Kelleher, C.; Hodkinson, T.R.; Byrne, S.L.; Barth, S. Genetic Diversity and Structure of a Diverse Population of Picea sitchensis Using Genotyping-by-Sequencing. Forests 2022, 13, 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odion, D.C.; Hanson, C.T. Fire Severity in Conifer Forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 1177–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevens, J.T.; Collins, B.M.; Miller, J.D.; North, M.P.; Stephens, S.L. Changing spatial patterns of stand-replacing fire in California conifer forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 406, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirabbasi, R.; Anagnostou, E.N.; Fakheri-Fard, A.; Dinpashoh, Y.; Eslamian, S. Analysis of meteorological drought in northwest Iran using the Joint Deficit Index. J. Hydrol. 2013, 492, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torregrosa, A.; Taylor, M.D.; Flint, L.E.; Flint, A.L. Present, Future, and Novel Bioclimates of the San Francisco, California Region. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e58450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloom, R.; Deur, D. Reframing Native Knowledge, Co-Managing Native Landscapes: Ethnographic Data and Tribal Engagement at Yosemite National Park. Land 2020, 9, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faunt, C.C.; Geological Survey (U.S.). Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California; U.S. Geological Survey, US Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; ISBN 9781411325159. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claudia-Faunt/publication/255565139_Groundwater_Availability_of_the_Central_Valley_Aquifer/links/549197390cf269b0486165f4/Groundwater-Availability-of-the-Central-Valley-Aquifer.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Lo, M.; Famiglietti, J.S. Irrigation in California’s Central Valley strengthens the southwestern U.S. water cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2013, 40, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witcher, T. The Colorado River Aqueduct. Civ. Eng. Mag. Arch. 2017, 87, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medellín-Azuara, J.; Howitt, R.E.; MacEwan, D.J.; Lund, J.R. Economic impacts of climate-related changes to California agriculture. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pathak, T.B.; Maskey, M.L.; Dahlberg, J.A.; Kearns, F.; Bali, K.M.; Zaccaria, D. Climate Change Trends and Impacts on California Agriculture: A Detailed Review. Agronomy 2018, 8, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruwer, J.; Johnson, R. Place-based marketing and regional branding strategy perspectives in the California wine industry. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbour, M.G.; Keeler-Wolf, T.; Schoenherr, A.A. Terrestrial Vegetation of California; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ewert, J.W. System for Ranking Relative Threats of U.S. Volcanoes. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2007, 8, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soil Survey Staff—NRCS/USDA. Keys to Soil Taxonomy; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Keys-to-Soil-Taxonomy.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Sawyer, J.O.; Keeler-Wolf, T.; Evens, J.M. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed.; California Native Plant Society, Ed.; CNPS Publications: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Mata, D. California Ultramafic Vegetation: A Phytosociological Update. Geobot. Stud. 2021, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahalovich, M.; Stritch, L. Pinus albicaulis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: E.T39049A2885918. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39049/2885918 (accessed on 8 May 2023).
- Kauffmann, M.E. Conifers of the Pacific Slope, 1st ed.; Backcountry Press: Kneeland, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hiebert, R.D.; Hamrick, J.L. Patterns and Levels of Genetic Variation in Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, Pinus longaeva. Evolution 1983, 37, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Birch, J.D.; Lutz, J.A.; Turner, B.L.; Karst, J. Divergent, age-associated fungal communities of Pinus flexilis and Pinus longaeva. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 494, 119277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgess, S.S.O.; Dawson, T.E. The contribution of fog to the water relations of Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don): Foliar uptake and prevention of dehydration. Plant Cell Environ. 2004, 27, 1023–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busing, R.T.; Fujimori, T. Dynamics of composition and structure in an old Sequoia sempervirens forest. J. Veg. Sci. 2002, 13, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmid, R.; Farjon, A. Sequoiadendron giganteum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: E.T34023A2840676. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/34023/2840676 (accessed on 8 May 2023).
- Dodd, R.S.; DeSilva, R. Long-term demographic decline and late glacial divergence in a Californian paleoendemic: Sequoiadendron giganteum (giant sequoia). Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 3342–3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsons, D.J. The Southern Extensions of Tsuga mertensiana (Mountain Hemlock) in the Sierra Nevada. Madrono 1972, 21, 536–539. [Google Scholar]
- Feddema, C.; Viereck, L.A.; Little, E.L. Alaska Trees and Shrubs. J. Range Manag. 1976, 29, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Center, W.R.C. Western Regional Climate Center; Tuweep, Arizona Station Report; Division of Atmospheric Sciences Desert Research Institute: Reno, NV, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ríos-Cornejo, D.; Penas, A.; Álvarez-Esteban, R.; Del Río, S. Links between teleconnection patterns and mean temperature in Spain. Theor. Appl. Clim. 2015, 122, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doblas-Reyes, F.J.; García-Serrano, J.; Lienert, F.; Biescas, A.P.; Rodrigues, L.R.L. Seasonal climate predictability and forecasting: Status and prospects. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2013, 4, 245–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, A.; Iyer, H.; Malm, W. Linear trend analysis: A comparison of methods. Atmos. Environ. 2001, 35, 5211–5222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudelsee, M. Trend analysis of climate time series: A review of methods. Earth Sci. Rev. 2019, 190, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, D.; Cabral, R.S.; de La Torre, F. Robust Regression. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 75. [Google Scholar]
- Alma, Ö.G. Comparison of Robust Regression Methods in Linear Regression. Int. J. Contemp. Math. Sci. 2011, 6, 409–421. [Google Scholar]
- Boogaart, K.G.V.D.; Filzmoser, P.; Hron, K.; Templ, M.; Tolosana-Delgado, R. Classical and Robust Regression Analysis with Compositional Data. Math. Geosci. 2021, 53, 823–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, L. A new approach to estimating earnings forecasting models: Robust regression MM-estimation. Int. J. Forecast. 2021, 37, 1011–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susanti, Y.; Pratiwi, H.; Sulistijowati, H.S.; Liana, T. M Estimation, S Estimation, and Mm Estimation in Robust Regression. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2014, 91, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habibullah, M.S.; Din, B.H.; Tan, S.-H.; Zahid, H. Impact of climate change on biodiversity loss: Global evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 1073–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wickramasinghe, L.; Weliwatta, R.; Ekanayake, P.; Jayasinghe, J. Modeling the Relationship between Rice Yield and Climate Variables Using Statistical and Machine Learning Techniques. J. Math. 2021, 2021, 6646126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyndman, R.J.; Khandakar, Y. Automatic Time Series Forecasting: The forecast Package for R. J. Stat. Softw. 2008, 27, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theil, H. A Rank-Invariant Method of Linear and Polynomial Regression Analysis BT—Henri Theil’s Contributions to Economics and Econometrics: Econometric Theory and Methodology. Econom. Theory Methodol. 1992, 23, 345–381. [Google Scholar]
- Pranab Kumar Sen Estimates of the Regression Coefficient Based on Kendall’s Tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1968, 63, 1379–1389. [CrossRef]
- Ripley, B.; Venables, B.; Bates, D.M.; Hornik, K.; Gebhardt, A.; Firth, D. Package ‘MASS’ (Version 7.3-51.4). Cran-R Project. 2019. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/ (accessed on 8 May 2023).
- Maechler, M.; Rousseeuw, P.; Croux, C.; Todorov, V.; Ruckstuhl, A.; Salibian-Barrera, M.; Verbeke, T.; Koller, M.; Conceicao, E.; di Palma, M.A. Robustbase: Basic Robust Statistics R Package Version 0.93-7. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Jung, H.; Choi, J. Projecting the Impact of Climate Change on the Spatial Distribution of Six Subalpine Tree Species in South Korea Using a Multi-Model Ensemble Approach. Forests 2021, 12, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dansereau, G.; Legendre, P.; Poisot, T. Evaluating ecological uniqueness over broad spatial extents using species distribution modelling. Oikos 2022, 2022, 09063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Questad, E.J.; Kellner, J.R.; Kinney, K.; Cordell, S.; Asner, G.P.; Thaxton, J.; Diep, J.; Uowolo, A.; Brooks, S.; Inman-Narahari, N.; et al. Mapping habitat suitability for at-risk plant species and its implications for restoration and reintroduction. Ecol. Appl. 2014, 24, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, G.; Yanez-Arenas, C.; Chen, C.; Plowright, R.K.; Webb, R.J.; Skerratt, L.F. Climate Change Could Increase the Geographic Extent of Hendra Virus Spillover Risk. EcoHealth 2018, 15, 509–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ARCGIS. 2019. Available online: https://www.esri.com/content/dam/esrisites/en-us/newsroom/arcnews/ArcNewsFall2019.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2023).
- Yousefi, H.; Hafeznia, H.; Yousefi-Sahzabi, A. Spatial Site Selection for Solar Power Plants Using a GIS-Based Boolean-Fuzzy Logic Model: A Case Study of Markazi Province, Iran. Energies 2018, 11, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas-Martinez, S. Syntaxonomical Synopsis of the Potential Natural Plant Communities of North America, I. Itinera Geobot. 1997, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Rivas-Martínez, S.; Sánchez-Mata, D.; Costa, M. North American Boreal and Western Temperate Forest Vegetation. Itinera Geobot. 1999, 12, 5–316. [Google Scholar]
- Mimura, M.; Aitken, S.N. Adaptive gradients and isolation-by-distance with postglacial migration in Picea sitchensis. Heredity 2007, 99, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California. Choice Rev. Online 2012, 49, 49–6882. [CrossRef]
- Safford, H.D.; North, M.; Meyer, M.D. Chapter 3: Climate Change and the Relevance of Historical Forest Conditions. Albany. 2012. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=47680166ec442c18d31d0fe5988c191687079b70#page=33 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- González-Pérez, A.; Álvarez-Esteban, R.; Penas, Á.; Río, S. Del Bioclimatic Indices Trends in California (U.S.) from 1980 to 2019. 2022. Available online: https://repositorio.aemet.es/bitstream/20.500.11765/14074/1/XIICongreso_AEC_GonzalezPerez.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2023).
- Kralicek, K.; Barrett, T.M.; Ver Hoef, J.M.; Temesgen, H. Forests at the Fringe: Comparing Observed Change to Projected Climate Change Impacts for Five Tree Species in the Pacific Northwest, United States. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2022, 5, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathys, A.S.; Coops, N.C.; Waring, R.H. An ecoregion assessment of projected tree species vulnerabilities in western North America through the 21st century. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 920–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kichas, N.E.; Pederson, G.T.; Hood, S.M.; Everett, R.G.; McWethy, D.B. Increased Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) Growth and Defense under a Warmer and Regionally Drier Climate. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2023, 6, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, A.J.; Phillips, L.B. Which tree species and biome types are most vulnerable to climate change in the US Northern Rocky Mountains? For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 338, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van, K.A.; Thornton, D.H. Predicting Future Habitat Suitability for the Balfourianae Pines in the Face of Climate Change Using Species Distribution Modeling; Washington State University: Pullman, WA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bentz, B.J.; Millar, C.I.; Vandygriff, J.C.; Hansen, E.M. Great Basin bristlecone pine mortality: Causal factors and management implications. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 509, 120099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beasley, R.S.; Klemmedson, J.O. Recognizing site adversity and drought-sensitive trees in stands of bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva). Econ. Bot. 1973, 27, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sillett, S.C.; Van Pelt, R.; Carroll, A.L.; Campbell-Spickler, J.; Antoine, M.E. Structure and dynamics of forests dominated by Sequoiadendron giganteum. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 448, 218–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhage, L. From the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters—Drought resistance in coast redwoods and giant sequoias. Plant J. 2022, 109, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephenson, N.L.; Das, A.J.; Ampersee, N.J.; Cahill, K.G.; Caprio, A.C.; Sanders, J.E.; Williams, A.P. Patterns and correlates of giant sequoia foliage dieback during California’s 2012–2016 hotter drought. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 419, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, A.H. Forest Expansion and Climate Change in the Mountain Hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) Zone, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, USA. Arct. Alp. Res. 1995, 27, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, D.J.N.; Slaton, M.R.; Koltunov, A. Temperature is positively associated with tree mortality in California subalpine forests containing whitebark pine. Ecosphere 2023, 14, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trouet, V.; Taylor, A.H.; Carleton, A.M.; Skinner, C.N. Fire-climate interactions in forests of the American Pacific coast. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trouet, V.; Taylor, A.H.; Carleton, A.M.; Skinner, C.N. Interannual variations in fire weather, fire extent, and synoptic-scale circulation patterns in northern California and Oregon. Theor. Appl. Clim. 2009, 95, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.D.; Skinner, C.N.; Safford, H.D.; Knapp, E.E.; Ramirez, C.M. Trends and causes of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22, 184–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Index Name | Definition |
---|---|
Average annual Temperature (Tavr) | Average annual temperature in degrees Celsius. |
Average annual Precipitation (Pavr) | Annual precipitation in millimetres. |
Positive annual Temperature (Tp) | Sum of the temperatures of the months whose average temperature is greater than 0 °C. It is expressed in tenths of a degree. |
Maximum Temperature (Tmax) | Average temperature of the hottest month of the year. |
Minimum Temperature (Tmin) | Average temperature of the coldest month of the year. |
Positive annual Precipitation (Pp) | Sum of the average precipitation in millimetres of the months whose average temperature is greater than 0 °C. |
Simple Continentality Index (Ic) | Difference or oscillation between the mean temperature of the warmest month (Tmax) and that of the coldest month of the year (Tmin). Ic = Tmax − Tmin. |
Thermicity Index (It) | It can be calculated as the average annual temperature plus twice the temperature of the coldest month, and all this multiplied by ten. It is, therefore, an index that values the intensity of the cold. |
Compensated Thermicity Index (Itc) | Index that attempts to weight the value of the thermicity index (It) due to the “excess” of cold or temperance that occurs during the cold season in the territories of marked continental or hyperoceanic climate on Earth. In addition, this Index provides thermotype characterisation. |
Annual Ombrothermic Index (Io) | This index is the quotient between the positive precipitation (Pp) and the positive temperature (Tp) multiplied by ten. |
Summer Ombrothermic Indices (Iosi) | Ios1 (ombrothermic index of the warmest month of the summer quarter); Ios2 (ombrothermic index of the hottest two months of the summer quarter); Ios3 (ombrothermic index of the summer quarter); and Ios4 (calculated with the months of the summer quarter and the previous month). |
Macrobioclimate | Bioclimate (Variants) | Continentality | Thermotype (Horizons) | Ombrotype (Horizons) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mediterranean | Pluviseasonal oceanic | Semicontinental | Lower mesomediterranean | Upper subhumid |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
González-Pérez, A.; Álvarez-Esteban, R.; Penas, Á.; del Río, S. Bioclimatic Characterisation of Specific Native Californian Pinales and Their Future Suitability under Climate Change. Plants 2023, 12, 1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101966
González-Pérez A, Álvarez-Esteban R, Penas Á, del Río S. Bioclimatic Characterisation of Specific Native Californian Pinales and Their Future Suitability under Climate Change. Plants. 2023; 12(10):1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101966
Chicago/Turabian StyleGonzález-Pérez, Alejandro, Ramón Álvarez-Esteban, Ángel Penas, and Sara del Río. 2023. "Bioclimatic Characterisation of Specific Native Californian Pinales and Their Future Suitability under Climate Change" Plants 12, no. 10: 1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12101966