Archive for year: 2016

(click here to download a pdf of this complete article or a one-page synopsis)

By Jennifer Hushaw & Si Balch

In Part I, we discussed the recent rise in U.S. wildfire, the evidence suggesting climate is a major driver of that increase, and the reality that future increases in temperature and drought frequency (in some regions) will lead to greater fire potential, especially in moisture-limited ecosystems. There is no question that wildfire risk has changed (and will continue to change) as a result of on-going climate change. Importantly, the anticipated shifts in fire will have big implications for commercial forests and conservation lands alike, as well as implications for the climate system itself because wildfire acts as a positive feedback that accelerates terrestrial carbon emissions. Severe disturbance caused by novel fire regimes may also hasten the species shifts expected with climate change, making fire an important driver of ecosystem change in both the near- and long-term.

In Part II, we describe the latest research on future changes in fire frequency, extent, and/or severity, as well as discussing management strategies and outlining some useful information sources.

Overview of Changing Fire Risk

FIRE POTENTIAL & SEASONALITY  

Fire potential and the length of the fire season are projected to increase in many regions. These changes will be driven by earlier snowmelt, warmer temperatures (particularly summer), drought stress, and changes in soil water content (Keane et al. 2015; Waring and Coops 2016; Young et al. 2016) associated with climate change.

In the continental U.S., the potential for very large fires (>12,355 acres) is strongly linked to meteorological and climatological conditions. Recent research indicates that the potential for very large fires will increase in historically fire-prone regions as a result of climate change, while other regions will experience an earlier start or an overall extension of the fire season as atmospheric conditions become conducive earlier in the year and persist later (Barbero et al. 2015) – see details in The North American Outlook (below).

Drier fuels will also increase fire potential because fuel moisture is highly sensitive to temperature. For example, a recent analysis in Canada found that for each additional degree of warming, a 5 to 15% increase in precipitation is required to maintain fuel moisture, depending on the type of fuel in question (i.e. fine surface fuels, duff layers, or deep organic soils) (Flannigan et al. 2016). In the absence of a sufficient precipitation increase, these fuels begin to dry out and move closer to critical thresholds for fire ignition and spread. In fact, Canada is expected to have more days of extreme fire weather because future precipitation will be insufficient to compensate for the drying associated with warmer temperatures – this is true even for future scenarios with the greatest precipitation increase (i.e. 40%) (Flannigan et al. 2016).

Some of these changes will be non-linear, leading to dramatic increases in fire frequency or severity in some regions once critical thresholds are crossed. A great example can be found in the boreal forest and tundra ecosystems of Alaska where there are distinct temperature and moisture thresholds[1] for fire occurrence that will likely be crossed by the end of this century, significantly increasing the probability of wildfire and potentially leading to novel fire regimes in those areas (Young et al. 2016).

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE DRIVES FIRE ACTIVITY

Climate-induced changes in vegetation (including type, density, large scale die-off, etc.) and forest pests will also influence fire risk by affecting fuel loads.

As we discussed in a previous bulletin, climate change will affect the population dynamics and spread of many forest pests and diseases, including mountain pine beetle. Mountain pine beetle outbreaks can, in turn, alter the quantity and characteristics of both live and dead fuels by changing the amount of fuel in the forest canopy, the base height of the canopy, the amount of surface fuel, and other aspects of forest biomass. In this way, they can influence fire probability, severity, and rate of spread, as well as the potential for crown fire (Hicke et al. 2012).

Climate change will also have direct effects on vegetation and forest biomass through long-term shifts in species distribution and forest composition, as well as small- and large-scale mortality events brought on by drought and other extremes. In Part I, we detailed how drought and beetle-induced mortality in western U.S. conifers is already contributing to an increase in fire. These mortality events and longer-term vegetation changes can flip an ecosystem from being fuel- to moisture-limited (or vice-versa), changing what controls fire activity in a given region (as discussed in Part I).

In some cases, the changing fire regime itself will cause vegetation communities to shift or flip from a moisture- to fuel-limited ecosystem. For example, the fire return interval in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem is predicted to decrease (i.e. more frequent fire) to the point that some forested areas will no longer be able to regenerate by mid-century and will instead convert to a new dominant vegetation type that shifts the region into a fuel-limited fire regime (Westerling et al. 2011).

“The bottom line is that we expect more fire in a warmer world.”  (Flannigan et al. 2016)

 

Modelling Future Wildfire

THE GLOBAL PICTURE

Globally, fire probability is expected to increase in the mid- to high-latitudes and decrease in the tropics, with these changes becoming more pronounced later in the century. In the near term (i.e. 2010-2039), the most consistent increases will occur in places with an already somewhat warm climate, but there are also major uncertainties in the next few decades. There is more confidence in projections for the end of the century (i.e. 2070-2099) when climate models have a higher level of agreement in their projections because the magnitude of climate change will be even greater, with some locations experiencing an average change in fire probability up to +0.25 (Figure 1; Moritz et al. 2012).

Flannigan et al. (2009) also suggest that a general increase in area burned and fire occurrence is likely, based on their review of close to 50 studies conducted between 1991 and 2009 on future fire activity around the world. Although these studies focused on different fire activity metrics, time frames, and locations, more than three-quarters of the analyses pointed to an increase in fire activity. In particular, they noted that fire seasons are lengthening in temperate and boreal regions and this trend should continue in a warming world.

THE NORTH AMERICAN OUTLOOK

Most of the research conducted to date in North America points toward a future increase in wildfire, with longer fire seasons and greater fire potential due to more conducive atmospheric conditions in a number of regions (Barbero et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2013; Young et al. 2016).

For example, in a study mentioned above, researchers from the University of Idaho, the US Forest Service, and the Canadian Forest Service modelled future potential for “very large fires” in different ecoregions due to climate change and they found the potential for very large fires will increase in the continental U.S. The largest absolute increases were predicted for the intermountain West and Northern California, while the largest relative changes were predicted in the northern tier of the country where the potential for very large fires has historically been quite low (e.g., see Barbero et al. 2015, Figure 1). In addition, their analysis suggests the southern U.S. will have an earlier fire season in the future, while the northern regions will experience an overall lengthening of the fire season, with an extension of potential burn days at both ends of the season. These changes are driven by anticipated increases in fire danger and temperature, as well as decreases in precipitation and relative humidity during the fire season (Barbero et al. 2015).

Another study by Liu et al. (2013) used results from a downscaled climate model to evaluate how fire potential will change by mid-century (2041–2070), as measured by the Keetch–Byram Drought Index (a commonly used index designed specifically for fire potential assessment). They predict an increase in fire potential in the Southwest, Rocky Mountains, northern Great Plains, Southeast, and Pacific coast due to warming trends, in addition to longer fire seasons in many regions.

Looking farther north, the research also suggests increases in fire potential across high-latitude regions. Specifically, the annual number of fire spread days in Canada is expected to increase anywhere from 35–400% by 2050, with large absolute increases in the Boreal Plains of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the greatest relative change in coastal and temperate forests (Wang et al. 2015). Similarly dramatic increases in fire activity are predicted for areas of Alaska with historically low flammability in the tundra and tundra-forest boundary areas, with “up to a fourfold increase in the 30-yr probability of fire occurrence by 2100” (Young et al. 2016).

Fire potential is not the only metric we might be concerned about, however. There are also questions about how fire severity may change as a result of climate change. Although fire severity will increase in some cases, as we have seen in the western U.S. with high fuel loads and exceptional drought conditions, future conditions may also decrease fire severity. When some researchers incorporated climate-induced changes in vegetation type, fuel load, and fire frequency, rather than climatic changes alone, they found that a widespread reduction in fire severity was likely for large portions of the western U.S. (Figure 2; Parks et al. 2016). This is because future increases in fire frequency and water deficits will reduce vegetation productivity, the amount of regeneration, and the amount of biomass accumulation on the landscape—all of which contribute to decreased fuel loads that will no longer support high-severity fires (Parks et al. 2016).

Management Considerations  

MANAGING FOR EXTREMES

When considering how to address these wildfire regime shifts, one approach is to “manage for the extremes,” rather than the average fire event or return interval in a given region, because it is the extremes that determine the necessary capacity of fire management organizations and, although these extremes cannot be as easily predicted, they can have serious consequences (Wang et al. 2015; Irland 2013).

ACTIVE FUELS REDUCTION

In terms of forest management, fuels reduction via pre-commercial or commercial thinning operations and prescribed fire is an obvious strategy for dealing with increased fire potential. That said, fuels reduction is better suited for some forest types than others, namely fuel-limited forest communities (Steel et al. 2015), e.g. yellow pine and mixed conifer forests in California or piñyon-juniper woodland and lower montane forests (dominated by ponderosa pine) in the Rocky Mountain region. In systems where the fire regime is primarily moisture- or climate-limited, a reduction in fuels will not be as effective at reducing fire hazard because fuel is not the limiting factor.

THE PASSIVE APPROACH

An argument can also be made for taking a more passive approach that “lets nature take its course,” where the fire regime is allowed to change and it ultimately shifts the dominant vegetation type to something new (as discussed above). In this case, the natural disturbance regime eventually transitions plant communities into a state of equilibrium with the new climate (Parks et al. 2016). This approach may ultimately be more appropriate and cost-effective in locations where conditions are expected to become more arid and fire frequency is projected to increase dramatically, compared with resisting change through on-going, active fire suppression efforts. Although not appropriate for most commercial operations, the passive approach may be a consideration for lands with a management focus on maintaining resilient transitional habitat for wildlife in a changing climate.

CHANGING CONTEXT

Of course, it is worth noting that these anticipated changes in wildfire are happening in the larger context of land use change (more development in the wildland urban interface, greater forest fragmentation), fuel accumulation (due to historic fire suppression efforts, landowner reluctance to harvest, and/or insufficient budgets for fuel treatments), and infrastructure/industry changes (lack of “fire wise” development in some regions, loss of institutional firefighting operations with ownership change).

Things to Do

A number of common practices can help land managers prepare for fire risk, which will be important to emphasize (or implement) in the face of increased fire potential. These include:

1. Put all foresters and other field personnel through the state forestry department’s basic fire training school.
2. Have the state forest service phone numbers and radio contact on everyone’s cell phone.
3. Equip everyone’s truck with Indian tanks and fire rakes.
4. Know who has bulldozers, where they are, and how to reach their owners.
5. Identify water sources for pumping.
6. Identify water sources for water bombers.
7. Identify landing zones for helicopters.
8. Think about how to communicate with abutting home owners about fire risk. This interface of houses and trees is an increasingly dangerous situation for both the forest owner and home owner.
9. Utilize the resources below to find up-to-date information on potential fire risk.

Additional Resources

LANDFIRE

• A program that produces landscape-scale geospatial products for planning, management, and operations, including maps and databases that describe vegetation, fuel, and fire regimes. Website provides data, reports, tools, maps, etc.
• www.landfire.gov
• Source: USDA Forest Service & US Department of Interior

National Interagency Coordination Center

• NICC coordinates interagency wildland firefighting resources. They also dispatch Incident Management Teams and resources as necessary when fires exceed the capacity of local or regional firefighting agencies. Website provides Incident Information with daily updates on large fires and Predictive Services, such as weather, fire fuels danger, outlooks, etc., as well as other resources for wildland fire and incident management decision-making.
• www.nifc.gov/nicc
• Source: Multi-agency organization, including: BIA, BLM, USFS, USFWS, NASF, & NPS

FRAMES (Fire Research and Management Exchange System)

• A searchable online portal for fire-related information, including documents, tools, data, online trainings, discussion forums, announcements, and research, as well as links to numerous other fire-related websites and portals for regionally-specific sites and resources.
• www.frames.gov
• University of Idaho; USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station

Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP)

• Source for fire science information, resources and funding announcements for scientists, fire practitioners and decision makers. They also produce weekly newsletters.
• www.firescience.gov
• JFSP is also home to the Fire Science Exchange Network, which includes the following:·    Northwest Fire Science Consortium·    California Fire Science Consortium·    Great Basin Fire Science Exchange·    Northern Rockies Fire Science Network·    Southern Rockies Fire Science Network·    Southwest Fire Science Consortium·    Great Plains Fire Science Exchange

  ·    Tallgrass Prairie and Oak Savanna Fire Science Consortium

  ·    Lake States Fire Science Consortium

  ·    Oak Woodlands and Forests Fire Science Consortium

  ·    Southern Fire Exchange

  ·    Consortium of Appalachian Fire Managers and Scientists

  ·    North Atlantic Fire Science Exchange

  ·    Alaska Fire Science Consortium

  ·    Pacific Fire Exchange

• Source: Multi-agency, including USFS, BLM, BIA, NPS, USFWS, USGS

Geographic Area Coordination Centers

• Web-portal for incident information, logistics, predictive services (e.g. information about weather, fuels and fire danger), and administrative resources for wildland fire agencies.
• http://gacc.nifc.gov 
• Source: Geographic Area Coordinating Group (GACG) – interagency; made up of Fire Directors from each of the area Federal and State land management agencies

Drought.gov

• Portal to numerous websites and resources related to wildfire risk and detection, including many listed in this table and others.
• www.drought.gov/drought/data-maps-tools/fire
• Source: Multi-agency, including: FEMA, EPA, Dept. of Interior, Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, DOE, USDA, and Army Corps of Engineers

NortheastWildfire.org

• Educational resources on wildfire prevention and “firewise” practices for homeowners and professionals, including state-specific information for New England and adjacent Canadian provinces.
• www.northeastwildfire.org
• Source: Northeast Forest Fire Protection Commission’s Prevention and Education Working Team

Wildfire Risk Assessment Portals

• Several states/regions have these websites, which include web-mapping applications showing fire risk and assessment, as well as information on historic fire occurrence and information for developing community wildfire protection plans.
  • Texas: www.texaswildfirerisk.com
  • Colorado: www.coloradowildfirerisk.com
  • Southern States: www.southernwildfirerisk.com
• Source(s): State forest service, state forester, universities, etc

Active Fire Mapping Program

• Provides near real-time, satellite-based detection and characterization of wildland fire conditions in a geospatial context for the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii and Canada.
• http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/index.php   *soon moving to new URL: https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm
• Source: USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Applications Center

Historic Wildfire Occurrence Data

• This data product contains a spatial database of wildfires that occurred in the United States from 1992 to 2013, generated for the national Fire Program Analysis (FPA) system. The wildfire records were acquired from the reporting systems of federal, state, and local fire organizations.
• www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/Product/RDS-2013-0009.3/
• USDA Forest Service

Global Maps of Fire Risk

• This on-line map viewer of satellite-derived global vegetation health products, includes one for fire risk that is updated continuously. You can also go back and see archived maps from previous dates.
• www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/vci/VH/vh_browse.php (choose “Fire Risk” under the Data Type dropdown menu)
• Source: Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) – the science arm of the NOAA Satellite and Information Service

National Fire Protection Association

• Source for national fire codes and standards, public education, and research on fire risk and prevention.
• www.nfpa.org

 

 

[1] Young et al (2016) identified two thresholds for fire occurrence, based on historic data: average July temperatures above 13.4⁰C and annual moisture availability (i.e. precipitation minus evapotranspiration) below 150mm.

~            ~             ~             ~             ~

References

Abatzoglou, J.T. and Williams, A.P. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. PNAS. 113(42): 11770–11775.

Barbero, R., Abatzoglou, J.T., Larkin, N.K., Kolden, C.A., Stocks, B. 2015. Climate change presents increased potential for very large fires in contiguous United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 24(7) 892-899.

Flannigan, M.D., Krawchuk, M.A., de Groot, W.J., Wotton, B.M., Gowman, L.M. 2009. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18: 483-507.  

Flannigan, M.D., Wotton, B.M., Marshall, G.A., de Groot, W.J., Johnston, J., Jurko, N., Cantin, A.S. 2016. Fuel moisture sensitivity to temperature and precipitation: climate change implications. Climatic Change. 134:59-71.

Hicke, J.A., Johnson, M.C., Hayes, J.L., Preisler, H.K. 2012. Effects of bark beetle-caused tree mortality on wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management. 271: 81-90.

Irland, L.C. 2013. Extreme value analysis of forest fires from New York to Nova Scotia, 1950-2010. Forest  Ecology and Management. 294: 150-157.

Keane, R.E., Loehman, R., Clark, J., Smithwick, E.A.H., Miller, C. 2015. Chapter 8: Exploring Interactions Among Multiple Disturbance Agents in Forest Landscapes: Simulating Effects of Fire, Beetles, and Disease Under Climate Change in Simulation Modeling of Forest Landscape Disturbances. A.H. Perera et al. (eds.) Springer International Publishing. Switzerland.

Liu, Y., Goodrick, S.L., Stanturf, J.A. 2013. Future U.S. wildfire potential trends projected using a dynamically downscaled climate change scenario. Forest Ecology and Management. 294: 120-135.

Moritz, M.A., Parisien, M-A., Batllori, E., Krawchuk, M.A., Van Dorn, J., Ganz, D.J., Hayhoe, K. 2012. Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity. Ecosphere. 3(6):49.

Parks, S.A., Miller, C., Abatzoglou, J.T., Holsinger, L.M., Parisien, M., Dobrowski, S.Z. 2016. How will climate change affect wildland fire severity in the western US? Environmental Research Letters. 11: 035002.

Steel, Z.L., Safford, H.D., Viers, J.H. 2015. The fire frequency-severity relationship and the legacy of fire suppression in California forests. Ecosphere. 6(1): Article 8, 23pp.

Wang, X., Thompson, D.K., Marshall, G.A., Tynstra, C., Carr, R., Flannigan, M.D. 2015. Increasing frequency of extreme fire weather in Canada with climate change. Climatic Change. 130: 573-586.

Waring, R.H. and Coops, N.C. 2016. Predicting large wildfires across western North America by modeling seasonal variation in soil water balance. Climatic Change. 135: 325-339.

Westerling, A.L., Tumer, M.G., Smithwick, E.A.H., Romme, W.H., Ryan, M.G. 2011. Continued warming could transform Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21^st century. PNAS. 108(32): 13165-13170.

Young, A.M., Higuera, P.E., Duffy, P.A., Hu, F.S. 2016. Climatic thresholds shape northern high-latitude fire regimes and imply vulnerability to future climate change. Ecography. 39: 001-012.

(click here to download a pdf of this complete article)

By Eric Walberg

Introduction

Optimizing forest management to account for the risks and opportunities posed by climate change is a challenge on many fronts. Limitations in the precision of climate models, uncertainties about natural system response, and the need to integrate climate concerns with other aspects of forest management are all complicating factors.

To better position CSLN members to respond to these risks and opportunities Manomet is proposing the development of a monitoring and management system that we are calling the Resiliency Assessment Framework (RAF). The RAF will track changing regional climate and forest conditions and allow CSLN members to evaluate conditions on their lands in light of the changing regional context. This approach is intended to support the inclusion of climate concerns in forest management plans by providing an opportunity to link management decision points to the data inputs from the RAF.

The RAF will be an optional component of the CSLN and will be intentionally structured to minimize additional work load and maximize utility in improving forest management. While many research questions associated with climate change and forest response might be addressed by this type of monitoring framework, our goal is a system that will maximize forest health and productivity.

Proposed Program Structure

The RAF will consist of three major components:

• Assessment and Tracking of Changing Regional Context: Manomet will develop a synopsis of climate change and forest response trends and projections for each of the six regions associated with the U.S. Climate Science Centers.
• Local Monitoring and Evaluation: Participating CSLN members will establish or augment an existing monitoring program to document changing forest conditions on the lands that they manage and support comparison of local and regional forest conditions.
• Climate Component for Forest Management Plans: Participating CSLN members will develop a climate change component in their forest management plans that links to the monitoring data generated by the RAF.

The majority of the regional data will come from public sources and will be based on research that is already underway or just being started. The frequency and extent of data collection on local forest conditions will be at the discretion of participating CSLN members.

Initial Development, Testing and Evaluation in New England

Initial development of the RAF will take place as a pilot effort in New England over the next year. Manomet will begin the process by developing a regional trends and projections report for the Northeast region and by working with participating CSLN members with land holdings in New England to develop and test local monitoring protocols and draft climate components for forest management plans. Assuming that the pilot phase is successful, the RAF will be expanded region by region in following years.

Questions the RAF Will Address

The two overarching questions that the RAF is intended to address are:

• How are climate conditions changing by region and site?
• How are forest conditions changing in response?

Through the pilot phase of the project Manomet will work with CSLN members to develop a set of specific research questions. As previously stated, the intent is to strike a balance between level of effort and utility in improving forest management. Examples of the type of specific questions that might be posed include:

• Is a warming climate increasing growth rates for particular tree species?
  • Possible regional climate metrics: change in length of growing season, change in average annual temperature, range of seasonal temperatures
  • Possible regional forest metrics: FIA forest growth rates by species
  • Possible local forest metrics: growth rates by species

• How is the frequency and severity of drought changing and are there discernable forest impacts?
  • Possible regional climate metrics: PDSI (Palmer Drought Severity Index), SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index), soil moisture, VPD (Vapor Pressure Deficit)
  • Possible regional forest metrics: Remote sensing of forest health and mortality, FIA forest health metrics, FIA tree mortality data, canopy water content
  • Possible local forest metrics: tree crown condition, tree mortality

• How is temperature variability changing and is there a discernable forest response?
  • Possible regional climate metrics: frequency of freeze/thaw events, range of seasonal temperatures, frequency of false springs
  • Possible regional forest metrics: Remote sensing of frost damage following leaf out, FIA forest health metrics, FIA forest growth rates
  • Possible local forest metrics: tree crown condition, growth rates

• Are storm events changing in frequency and intensity and what is the forest response?
  • Possible regional climate metrics: maximum wind speed, frequency of threshold wind exceedance, persistence of storm systems
  • Possible regional forest metrics: FIA forest health metrics, FIA tree mortality data, wind throw
  • Possible local forest metrics: tree crown condition, wind throw

Obvious challenges exist in differentiating climate impacts from the many other factors that influence forest health and productivity. However, as climate change progresses it is likely that climate-related factors will become more prominent forest stressors and will therefore be more readily identifiable. For example, recent studies of the impact of “hot drought” on forests in the western U.S. have identified a climate change component in the excessive heat that has exacerbated tree mortality. The RAF can potentially serve as an early warning system and hopefully will provide insight on emerging factors in forest health and changing competitiveness of particular tree species.

Measures of Success

Key measures of success for the RAF include the following considerations:

• Does implementation of the RAF result in forest management insight would not occur in its absence?
• Is the RAF worth the investment of time and energy?
• Does the RAF improve understanding of how climate change is impacting forests?
• Does the RAF provide a mechanism for engagement and education on climate change?
• Over the long term, does the RAF result in improved forest health and resiliency?

Once the pilot phase is underway it will be possible to identify more specific measures of success associated with specific research questions.

The next step in this process will be a survey of CSLN members to get a better idea of what you are currently doing in the way of forest monitoring and to take a first cut at identifying priority research questions. The survey results will be discussed at the October 26, 2016 CSLN member gathering in Boston.

(click here to download a pdf of this complete article)

By Eric Walberg

Introduction

Global efforts to reduce carbon emissions are ramping up and carbon markets will play an increasingly important role in limiting warming to the 2 degree C ceiling established by the Paris Climate Agreement.  I participated in the largest annual North American carbon market conference in San Diego, CA, May 4-6, 2016. The California Cap and Trade system formed the backdrop for many of the sessions, but the conference drew international participants and presentations covered a range of global topics. Recurrent themes included the impact of the Paris Climate Accord, the future of the California carbon market, linkages between the California Cap and Trade system and other sub-national programs, the future of the Clean Power Plan, and possible inclusion of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) projects in the California market.

What are the opportunities and ramifications for the forestry sector? What role will forests play in meeting the national commitments associated with the Paris agreement? This month’s bulletin is an exploration of those questions as informed by the presentations and discussions at the conference.

Key Themes from the Conference

PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

The ramifications of the December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement were discussed in several of the sessions. The general consensus is that the Agreement sends a positive signal for global expansion of carbon pricing, regulations, compliance markets, and voluntary markets in efforts to limit warming to the 2 degree C goal. The Paris Agreement establishes a bare bones framework for the creation of new international carbon markets and cooperative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The high-level framing in Article 6 of the Agreement (see hyperlink pg. 23) must be fleshed out before the nature of the resulting markets and cooperative agreements becomes clear.  It is too early to know what opportunities for the forestry sector might result.

A related topic in these discussions was the tremendous need for additional capital to finance the conversion to a green economy. Additional regulation and/or establishment of a price on carbon were two methods discussed to drive capital towards needed solutions. Green bonds are also seen as a growth area with some early indications of investor preference for green bonds driving higher prices in the secondary market.  China is poised to have a major impact as they establish a national cap and trade system in 2017 and become a major issuer of green bonds. Market commentators estimate that China’s green bond market could be worth $230 billion in the next five years.

STATUS AND FUTURE OF THE CALIFORNIA CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM

The California Cap and Trade system appears to have addressed many of the fundamental flaws of earlier systems. A price floor in the offset market has created demand and stability. Rigorous project review on the part of the California Air Resources Board has created investor confidence, but has also created significant hurdles for offset project developers. Thus far, the bulk of the emission reductions in California have been driven by actions within capped sectors (to reduce emissions), rather than through purchase of offset credits from non-capped sectors such as forestry. The California system continues to function as a laboratory of innovation and will influence international efforts to fulfill the Paris Agreement.

The initial enabling legislation (AB32) established the program through 2020 and efforts to extend the cap and trade framework are underway in the California legislature. The general sense from the conference discussions is that that program will be extended, but will likely be modified in the process. The program also faces a lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce (CCC). A state judge rejected the assertion by the CCC that the program is an illegal tax, but an appeal is pending.

STATUS OF FOREST OFFSETS WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA SYSTEM

Forest offset projects account for the majority of offset projects approved in the California Cap and Trade system so far. Three categories of forest offset projects are possible: (1) afforestation, (2) avoided conversion, and (3) improved forest management. Thus far, the majority of the approved projects are in the improved forest management category. Several sessions touched on the notion of “charismatic” carbon credits—projects that bring co-benefits such as flood control and water quality protection. It is not clear if this is a factor in the prevalence of forest offset projects in the compliance market.

One of the sessions included an in-depth discussion of areas of risk associated with forest offset projects and how parties attempt to allocate that risk in contract negotiations. The five areas of risk were: (1) the possibility of credit invalidation, (2) failure to deliver a successful project, (3) reversal of a project, (4) land restrictions associated with projects, and (5) price^*.

• Invalidation of a project is a risk during the first eight years of a project and could result from a material misstatement (greater than 5%) of the carbon sequestration value of a project, failure to comply with all relevant environmental, health and safety laws, or double dipping (selling the same offsets into multiple programs).
• Project delivery failure could be associated with multiple causes such as insolvency, failure to meet statutory deadlines, negligence, etc.
• Reversal could be due to unintentional causes such as fire or wind storm, or intentional causes such as negligence or willful intent. In the event of an unintentional reversal the credits are covered by a buffer pool maintained by the California Air Resources Board. In the case of intentional reversal the owner is responsible for replacing the credits.
• Land restrictions are primarily to meet the carbon sequestration goals associated with the contract. Harvesting is permitted as long as carbon sequestration goals are met. The land can be transferred but subsequent owners must assume all carbon responsibilities. A second category of land restrictions are those associated with compliance with the previously mentioned environmental, health and safety laws.
• Price concerns include both the market value of the credits and the contractual allocation of risk and financial reward among all of the parties involved in assembling an offset project.

^*Source: From a presentation entitled: “The Art of the Deal: Legal Considerations with Carbon Projects” by Erika Anderson of Anderson Law on May 4, 2016 at the Navigating the American Carbon World conference in San Diego, California.

EXPANDING CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES

The California Cap and Trade system is a hub for a growing network of sub-national entities that are linking their markets. The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) was launched in 2007 to evaluate and implement policies to tackle climate change. Membership of the WCI includes California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Building on the WCI, California and Québec completed an agreement in 2013 linking their programs. Ontario has indicated that they will be next to link their program.

In a parallel effort, California began engaging on REDD through the creation of the Governors’ Climate and Forest Task Force in 2008. This subnational government initiative is a network and forum focused on forest conservation, climate mitigation, and exploring linkage between REDD programs and the California Cap and Trade system. This process resulted in development of a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between California, Acre, Brazil, and Chiapas, Mexico to assess the details associated with program linkage. Technical and policy recommendations were developed by a team of experts and delivered to all three of the partners in 2013. It is not yet clear when this process might result in formal linkage of REDD projects with the California market or exactly what form that linkage would take.

Challenges and Opportunities for the Forestry Sector

As signatory nations strive to meet the emission reduction goals associated with the Paris Agreement it is certain that afforestation, forest protection, and enhanced forest management will be key features of national programs. Given the prominent role that forest offset projects play in the California Cap and Trade system it is reasonable to assume that forest offsets will be included in other markets. Regulatory change and/or establishment of a price on carbon will likely increase the value of the climate regulation services provided by forests. The following are my thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for the forestry sector based on the conference discussions.

• Participation in the California offset market: Barring a successful legal challenge to the program or significant regulatory change, the opportunity for forest offset projects in the California market will continue to be the most tangible and immediate opportunity for the forestry sector in the compliance market. Opportunities for offset projects will continue to exist in the voluntary market, but it is not likely that prices will rival those offered in the compliance market.
• REDD offset market: Early indications are that, if and when REDD projects enter the California market, the only project categories that will be approved are afforestation and reforestation. It is possible that enhanced forest management projects will eventually be included pending a successful pilot period with afforestation and reforestation projects.
• Possible inclusion of biomass energy and/or forest offsets in programs that develop in response to the Clean Power Plan: Given the legal challenges to the CPP it is difficult to know if the draft regulatory language will survive intact. If the existing framework does move forward it appears that the use of biomass energy will be available to states as one element of transition to renewable energy portfolios. The details of the carbon accounting and economics associated with biomass under the CPP are not known at this point. It does not appear likely that forest offset projects will be accepted by EPA as a substitute for reducing emissions from existing power generation facilities, but it is possible that carbon markets that develop in response to the CPP could include forest offsets in a broader context.
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) forest offsets: A 2014 reduction in the RGGI emissions cap by 45% resulted in renewed interest in the market and allowance prices have increased from $2.80 in March of 2013 to $7.05 in December of 2015, with a drop to $5.25 in March of 2016. These prices have not been high enough to foster demand for offset projects but that could change in the future if allowance prices rise.
• Competitive advantage for wood building materials: Regulatory change and carbon pricing will likely increase the expense of competing materials with a larger carbon footprint, such as concrete and steel.
• Increased efforts to reduce deforestation in the tropics: These efforts may reduce opportunities for commercial forestry operations in the tropics and could result in increased demand for forest products from temperate zones.
• REDD and related projects: New commercial opportunities may emerge for sustainable forestry and agroforestry as a component of REDD projects and other efforts to comply with the Paris Agreement.

Manomet will continue to monitor developments in the policy realm and carbon markets and will report back to Climate Smart Land Network members on an as needed basis.

(click to download formatted pdfs of this full article or a one-page synopsis)

By Jennifer Hushaw, Si Balch, and Eric Walberg

In Part I of this bulletin, we described how climate change may soon rival human influence as the biggest driver of biodiversity change, and in this piece we look more closely at the links between climate and the habitat requirements of some specific groups of wildlife and game species in North America.

We don’t have much knowledge about exactly how climate will affect wildlife, even when compared to the uncertainties of forest response to climate change (as discussed previously). This is because wildlife species are higher up the trophic chain, with complicated interactions that determine their health and geographic limits (e.g. predator-prey relationships). In contrast, the distribution of vegetation communities is linked directly to climatic drivers and a short list of other factors, such as soils. The key to anticipating potential impacts is to understand the habitat characteristics that allow a species to survive in a particular place and determine how climate change might influence those conditions. The most robust predictions will be cases where a species has life history traits that are known to be particularly climate sensitive, such as the snowshoes hare’s reliance on snow cover for camouflage.

Wildlife species are far more mobile than plants and will therefore be able to respond quickly to changing climate conditions—changes in the behavior, distribution, or population of wildlife species are early indicators of climate change in the field. Quick response times will also make it easier for managers to adjust their management strategies and adapt based on results that are observable within a decade or so, rather than the multiple decades, or longer, needed to observe shifts in vegetation.

The impacts of climate change are not always direct—climate can and will affect species in less obvious ways through shifting habitat suitability, changes in prey availability or abundance, altered patterns of herbivory, and others. These indirect impacts can pose a major risk to wildlife when they exacerbate existing stressors. Any effort on the part of forest owners or managers to maintain, improve, or increase habitat for climatically-vulnerable species will help buffer against shifts in desired wildlife.

Species Highlights

Studies examining the impacts of climate change on specific wildlife species are still a relatively new realm of science and, while there is an incredible amount of research being done, the information available varies greatly depending on the species—as shown in the relative length of the sections below. The management recommendations included here are also general in nature, reflecting the fact that many of the standard wildlife management techniques we already employ are suitable for responding to the impacts of climate change for number of species.

Deer, Moose, Elk

Climate change will affect the population dynamics, range limits, habitat selection, browsing/foraging behavior, and disease outbreaks of these ungulate species.

As conditions change, moose and deer may alter their habitat selection, shifting where and when they utilize certain types of habitat. For example, decreases in lake ice in Michigan have led to more lake effect snow that creates harsh winter conditions for deer and increases their reliance on shelter in conifer swamps (although this increased precipitation is expected to shift more toward rain over the next century) (Hoving & Notaro 2015). White-tailed deer are not expected to decline as a direct result of climate change, but these types of changes in migration patterns and seasonal habitat are likely (Hoving et al 2013). Similarly, it has been documented that moose will change their behavior to alleviate heat stress, by moving to areas of higher and denser forest canopy when they reach a daytime temperature threshold of around 68⁰F (Melin et al 2014; Street et al 2015; NWF 2013a).

Range limits will also shift, and in some cases they already have, e.g. white-tailed deer have expanded into western boreal forests and climate has been shown to be an important factor determining their presence in that region (Dawe et al 2014). At the northern edge of their range, white-tailed deer are controlled by low winter temperatures and snow depth, so conifer stand deer yards are important for their survival because they provide thermal cover and reduced snow depth. As the climate changes, this cold/snow limiting line will move and two things are likely to result: (1) the more southerly deer yards will become less critical to survival and (2) deer populations will increase. Similarly, research on moose in China has revealed that climate is an important factor influencing population dynamics there; increases in late spring temperatures, in particular, have the potential to shift the southern limits of moose distribution northward (Dou et al 2013).

Changes in moose and deer population dynamics have been linked to large-scale climate patterns, particularly the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which determines much of the snowfall and winter temperatures in northern latitudes (Post & Stenseth 1998). Likewise, recent research suggests that warmer temperatures and a shorter period of high quality forage in spring have led to nutritional deficiencies in maternal moose that decreased recruitment in the southern part of their range (Monteith et al 2015). As cold-adapted species, moose are generally considered to be highly vulnerable to climate change and decreases in abundance are likely by the middle of the century (Hoving et al 2013).

Climate change-induced decreases in snowpack have also led to shifts in browsing or foraging behavior in both moose and elk. In the case of moose, low snow conditions can increase browse on balsam fir compared to sugar maple or Viburnum (Christensen et al 2014). For elk, less snowpack means easier access to aspen shoots, which has caused substantial declines in aspen recruitment, particularly in the Rocky Mountains (Brodie et al 2012). In fact, climate change may actually provide some positive benefits for elk in the form of milder winters and better forage (NWF 2013a). Importantly, these kinds of climate-driven changes in plant-herbivore interactions can have wide reaching affects within the larger ecological community (Auer & Martin 2012).

Lastly, as discussed in Part I, climate change is altering pest and disease dynamics, including the transmission of wildlife diseases. White-tailed deer are vulnerable to hemorrhagic disease (HD), including epizootic hemorrhagic disease and bluetongue viruses, which are transmitted by biting midges. The first fall frost usually kills the insects, but longer summers will mean longer exposure times and hot, dry weather (which is likely to increase) has been strongly associated with past outbreaks, which suggests that the risk of widespread deer mortality from these diseases will increase (Hoving et al 2013; NWF 2013a). In recent years, warmer, shorter winters have also spelled trouble for moose populations, as winter ticks have proliferated enough to cause a significant increase in moose mortality (heavy infestations leave moose weak, vulnerable to disease, and at risk of cold exposure and death in cases where they rub off their insulating hair in an attempt to rid themselves of the ticks) (NWF 2013a).

Management Considerations:

• Monitor for changing browsing patterns.
• Provide areas of high, dense forest canopy for moose, particularly in southern parts of their range.
• Factor increased deer browsing into regeneration planning.

 

Canada Lynx

Climate change will affect the population dynamics, distribution and abundance of prey species, hunting success, connectivity with peripheral populations, and range margins of lynx populations.

Canada Lynx is a charismatic animal that has drawn a great deal of conservation interest since its listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in March of 2000. It is considered highly vulnerable to climate change because it is a cold-adapted species that is particularly well-suited to hunting in deep snow, which gives it a competitive advantage over other predators (an advantage that will be lost with decreasing snow cover).

The decrease in snow cover will not only affect hunting success, but will also affect the distribution and abundance of the primary prey species, the snowshoe hare, whose populations are expected to shift northward due to climate change (Murray et al 2008). This is partly because hares in southern locations (with decreasing snow cover) often find themselves mismatched with their surroundings when they molt into their white winter coat in the absence of snow, which makes them far more visible to predators, with weekly survival decreases up to 7% (Zimova et al 2016). In contrast, the range of snowshoe hares has expanded in some northern locations, particularly Arctic Alaska, where warming temperatures and expanded shrub habitat have created more suitable conditions (Tape et al 2015).

Along with prey species abundance, climate itself is an important determinant of lynx population dynamics. Large-scale climate patterns, including the North Atlantic Oscillation index (NAO), the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), and northern hemispheric temperature, play a role in producing and modifying the classic 10-year population cycles associated with lynx and snowshoe hare in the boreal parts of their range, by influencing rain and snowfall patterns (Yan et al 2013).

Climate change is also affecting connectivity between core and peripheral lynx populations, especially island populations that are sustained by immigration of individuals from other areas. Individuals from the core of the lynx range migrate over frozen rivers to reach island habitats, so warming conditions and less frequent formation of ice bridges will leave these populations even more isolated (Koen et al 2015; Licht et al 2015). As a result, range margin shifts are expected (and in some cases already observed) that include contraction of these smaller, peripheral groups, as well as northward contraction of the southern range boundary and the core population areas (Carroll 2007; Koen et al 2014).

Management Considerations:

• Provide large, contiguous tracts of landscape, especially where there is connectivity with more stable Canadian populations of lynx.
• Maintain patches of young, dense conifers for hare habitat.

 

Bats

Climate change may affect bat population distributions, reproductive success, hibernation behavior, and access to food.

Climate is known to influence the biogeography of bats, as well as their access to food, timing of hibernation, development, and other factors, so it is likely that changing climate conditions may adversely impact some bat species—some specific life history characteristics that may put bats at risk from climate change include (Sherwin et al 2012):

• Small range size,
• high latitude or high altitude range,
• range that is likely to become water stressed,
• fruit-based diet,
• restricted to aerial hawking (prey pursued and caught in flight),
• and restricted dispersal behavior.

Throughout the globe, there have been a number of documented cases of shifting bat populations linked to climate change, including range expansion of at least one Mediterranean species (Ancillotto et al 2016) and mostly northward shifts in a number of species in China (Wu 2016). In the Czech Republic, evidence suggests that a temperate, insectivorous bat is benefiting from rising spring temperatures, but the effect may be buffered by excessive summer rain that decreases reproductive success (Lučan et al 2013)—an example of the complicated nature of predicting exactly how climate change will impact a given wildlife species.

Of course, climate change is not the most immediate concern in the United States, where the introduction of white-nose syndrome to the eastern U.S. in the early 2000’s led to a massive decline in bat populations. However, changing climate conditions do have the potential to further stress these decimated populations, which is a cause for concern. This also highlights the need to protect the genetic diversity within refugial populations, especially on the leading edge for northward migration (Razgour et al 2013).

One particularly hard hit species, the Northern Long-eared Bat (NLB), was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and a final rule was released in January 2016 detailing the protections for this species under the ESA. Use these links to access a range map for the NLB and up-to-date maps of documented cases of white-nose syndrome, as well as details about the Final 4(d) Rule for the NLB under the ESA—there are some considerations for forest managers.

Management Considerations:

• Leave a ¼ mile buffer around known hibernaculum*.
• Leave a 150ft buffer around documented or potential maternal roosting trees*, especially during the pupping season in June & July.

* Contact your state agency or US Fish & Wildlife Service for more information about hibernaculum and maternal roost tree locations.

 

Forest Song Birds

Climate change will alter migration patterns, population dynamics, and the quality and availability of habitat for forest song birds.

Song bird species have exhibited a variety of responses to recent climate change. In particular, shifts in timing have been observed for some migratory species, including spring arrival shifted several days to more than a week early (depending on the species), such as Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Towhee, Red-eyed Vireo, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, and Mountain Bluebirds (NWF 2013b; Manomet). There is mixed evidence regarding changes in fall migration, with both early and late shifts observed in migrants passing through Massachusetts (Ellwood et al 2015).

Birds have the advantage of being able to respond rapidly to warming temperatures, but their ability to adapt depends on where they overwinter, how they receive their migration cues, and the level of mismatch between migration timing and the availability of associated food sources. In fact, evidence from 33 years of bird capture data collected by Manomet’s land bird conservation program suggests that short-distance migrants respond to temperature changes, while some mid-distance migrants respond to temperature and/or changes in the Southern Oscillation Index, and long-distance migrants tend not to change over time (Miller-Rushing et al 2008).

The vulnerability of individual species is also related to their specific habitat requirements and whether climate change may alter the availability of quality breeding or foraging areas. For example, a study of over 160 bird species in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California found that those associated with alpine/subalpine and aquatic habitats ranked as the most vulnerable, while those associated with drier habitats (i.e. foothill, sagebrush, and chaparral associated species) may experience range expansion in the future (Siegel et al 2014). Challenges may also arise for bird species that rely on temperature-sensitive prey species for food, such as aerial insectivores (e.g. Common Nighthawk, Chimney Swift, and Bank Swallow) that eat flying insects.

Lastly, as we have seen for other groups of species, rapid shifts in the distribution of wild birds will have implications for the spread and abundance of wildlife diseases (Van Hemert et al 2014).

Management Considerations:

• Use silvicultural techniques that promote the type of forest structure preferred by desired species, e.g.
  • See recommendations for a select number of important bird species that favor fully stocked stands in Birds with Silviculture in Mind (part of the Foresters for the Birds program by Audubon Vermont and the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation)
  • Use guidance and resources from your local NRCS field office to develop forest structure for bird species that prefer early successional habitat

Note: Visit the Climate Change Bird Atlas from the U.S. Forest Service for maps of projected change in species distribution for 147 birds in the eastern U.S.

 

Game Birds (Grouse, Turkey, Quail)

Climate change may affect habitat suitability and availability for important game bird species, as well as their breeding success and population dynamics—positive and negative projections vary from species to species.

Climate plays a role in the distribution of game bird species, as it does with many others. In fact, the population dynamics of several gamebirds seem to be influenced by large-scale climatic patterns (Kozma et al 2016; Williford et al 2016; Lusk et al 2001), but the effects of climate change are expected to vary significantly from one species to the next. For example, Black Grouse in Finland have experienced population declines for four decades related to seasonally asymmetric climate change. In particular, springs have warmed faster than the early summer period, so grouse lay their eggs earlier and then experience higher chick mortality when they hatch before temperatures are sufficiently warm (Ludwig et al 2006). Similarly, Spruce Grouse is considered moderately vulnerable because its montane spruce-fir habitat is rare (and likely to decline) in the southern edges of its boreal range. On the other hand, Ruffed Grouse is a resident species in the northeast U.S. whose range is projected to decrease and shift further north, even as overall populations remain relatively stable (Rodenhouse et al 2008; Hoving et al 2013).

In contrast, some gamebirds are likely to fare even better under climate change, including Wild Turkey (which has expanded northward (Niedzielski & Bowman 2015) and will benefit from less severe winters (Hoving et al 2013)), Northern bobwhite (which is likely to increase (Hoving et al 2013)), and Sage Grouse (which studies suggest may enjoy an increase in suitable habitat in some regions, such as southeastern Oregon, by the end of the century (Creutzburg et al 2015)).

Management Considerations:

• Follow habitat guidelines from the Ruffed Grouse Society, Wild Turkey Federation, Timberdoodle.org, the Wildlife Management Institute and others.

 

Fish

Climate change has already led to increased temperatures in freshwater systems, putting cold-water fish species at risk of physiological stress or extirpation in certain waterways, while some warm-water species may experience increased growth rates and northward expansion.

Climate change has the potential for significant adverse impacts on cold-water fish species such as brook and rainbow trout. These species depend on access to cold water for reproduction and may also suffer from an increase in summer low flow stream conditions. As discussed in the August 2014 Bulletin, designing stream crossings to accommodate floods associated with the increase in heavy precipitation also has the benefit of minimizing fragmentation of aquatic habitat. Intact stream systems allow fish and other aquatic species to move in search of appropriate temperature and flow regimes.

For warm-water fish, evidence suggests that some species, such as small mouth bass, may experience increased growth rates as temperatures rise (although this growth effect may taper off if conditions become too warm later in the century) (Pease & Paukert n.d.). Some warm-water fishes have also moved northwards and are likely to continue expanding into freshwater systems traditionally dominated by cold-water species (Groffman et al 2014).

Management Considerations:

• Upsize culverts, transition to arched structures, or use removable crossings to provide the win/win of reduced infrastructure damage from floods and enhanced connectivity of aquatic habitat.

 

Amphibians

Climate change will drive changes in habitat availability and suitability for amphibian species, which are highly sensitive to changes in temperature and precipitation.

There is weak evidence that climate change is driving observed declines in amphibian populations in various locations worldwide (Li et al 2013), but a number of studies suggest that future climate change is likely to lead to declines and/or range contractions (Barrett et al 2014; Loyola et al 2014; Wright et al 2015). These changes will be driven by a reduction in climatically suitable habitat, reduced soil moisture (which will reduce prey abundance and lead to loss of habitat), reduced snowfall and increased summer evaporation (which will change the duration and occurrence of seasonal wetlands) (Corn 2005).

Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to changing climate because their ectothermic physiology makes them very sensitive to temperature and precipitation changes, they have low dispersal capability, and often have strong associations with temporary wetlands that are likely to be threatened by climate change (Tuberville et al 2015).

Management Considerations:

• Maintain appropriate buffer areas around water bodies, vernal pools, ephemeral and intermittent streams that act as amphibian habitat.

 

~            ~             ~             ~             ~

References

Ancillotto, L., Santini, L., Ranc, N., Maiorano, L., Russo, D. 2016. Extraordinary range expansion in a common bat: the potential roles of climate change and urbanization. The Science of Nature. 103(15).

Auer, S.K. and Martin, T.E. 2012. Climate change has indirect effects on resource use and overlap among coexisting bird species with negative consequences for their reproductive success. Global Change Biology. 19(2): 411-419.

Barrett, K., Nibbelink, N.P., Maerz, J.C. 2014. Identifying Priority Species and Conservation Opportunities Under Future Climate Scenarios: Amphibians in a Biodiversity Hotspot. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 5(2): 282-297.

Brodie, J., Post, E., Watson, F., Berger, J. 2012. Climate change intensification of herbivore impacts on tree recruitment. Proc. R. Soc. B. 279: 1366-1370.

Carroll, C. 2007. Interacting Effects of Climate Change, Landscape Conversion, and Harvest on Carnivore Populations at the Range Margin: Marten and Lynx in the Northern Appalachians. Conservation Biology. 21(4): 1092-1104.

Christenson, L.M., Mitchell, M.J., Groffman, P.M., Lovett, G.M. 2014. Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Forest Ecosystems: Biogeochemical Links Between Trees and Moose in the Northeast USA. Ecosystems. 17: 442-457.

Corn, P.S. 2005. Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation. 28.1:59-67.

Creutzburg, M.K., Henderson, E.B., Conklin, D.R. 2015. Climate change and land management impact rangeland condition and sage-grouse habitat in southeastern Oregon. AIMS Environmental Science. 2(2): 203-236.

Dawe, K.L., Bayne, E.M., Boutin, S. 2014. Influence of climate and human land use on the distribution of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the western boreal forest. Can. J. Zool. 92: 353-363.

Dou, H., Jiang, G., Stott, P., Piao, R. 2013. Climate change impacts population dynamics and distribution shift of moose (Alces alces) in Heilongjiang Province of China. Ecol. Res. 28: 625-632.

Ellwood, E. R., A. Gallinat, R. B. Primack, and T. L. Lloyd-Evans. 2015. Autumn migration of North American landbirds. Pp. 193–205 in E. M. Wood and J. L. Kellermann ( editors), Phenological synchrony and bird migration: changing climate and seasonal resources in North America. Studies in Avian Biology (no. 47), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Groffman, P. M., P. Kareiva, S. Carter, N. B. Grimm, J. Lawler, M. Mack, V. Matzek, and H. Tallis. 2014. Ch. 8: Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S.  Global Change Research Program. DOI:10.7930/J0TD9V7H.

Hoving, C.L., Lee, Y.M., Badra, P.J., Klatt, B.J. 2013. Changing Climate, Changing Wildlife: A Vulnerability Assessment of 400 Species of Greatest Conservation Need and Game Species in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report No. 3564.

Hoving, C.L. and Notaro, M. 2015. Ice, Snow, and Swamp: Managing Deer in Michigan’s Changing Climate. Michigan Journal of Sustainability. Volume 3, Spring: pp 101-110.

Koen, E.L., Bowman, J., Murray, D.L., Wilson, P.J. 2014. Climate change reduces genetic diversity of Canada lynx at the trailing range edge. Ecography. 37: 754-762.

Koen, E.L., Bowman, J., Wilson, P.J. 2015. Isolation of peripheral populations of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 93(7): 521-530.

Kozma, R., Melsted, P., Magnusson, K.P., Hoglund, J. 2016. Looking into the past – the reaction of three grouse species to climate change over the last million years using whole genome sequences. Molecular Ecology. 25(2): 570-580.

Li, Y., Cohen, J.M., Rohr, J.R. 2013. Review and synthesis of the effects of climate change on amphibians. Integrative Zoology. 8: 145-161.

Licht, D.S., Moen, R.A., Brown, D.P., Romanski, M.C., Gitzen, R.A. 2015. The Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) of Isle Royale: Over-harvest, Climate Change, and the Extirpation of an Island Population. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. 129: 139-151.

Loyola, R.D., Lemes, P., Brum, F.T., Provete, D.B., Duarte, L.D.S. 2014. Clade-specific consequences of climate change to amphibians in Atlantic Forest protected areas. Ecography. 37: 65-72.

Lučan, R.K., Weiser, M., Hanák, V. 2013. Contrasting effects of climate change on the timing of reproduction and reproductive success of a temperate insectivorous bat. Journal of Zoology. 290(2): 151-159.

Lusk, J.J., Guthery, F.S., DeMaso, S.J. 2001. Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) abundance in relation to yearly weather and long-term climate patterns. Ecological Modelling. 146(1-3): 3-15.

Melin, M., Matala, J., Mehtatalo, L., Tiilikainen, R., Tikkanen, O., Maltamo, M., Pusenius, J., Packalen, P. Moose (Alces alces) reacts to high summer temperatures by utilizing thermal shelters in boreal forests – an analysis based on airborne laser scanning of the canopy structure at moose locations. Global Change Biology 20: 1115-1125.

Miller-Rushing, A.J., Lloyd-Evans, T.L., Primack, R.B., Satzinger, P. 2008. Bird migration times, climate change, and changing population sizes. Global Change Biology. 14: 1959-1972.

Monteith, K.L., Klaver, R.W., Herset, K.R., Holland, A.A., Thomas, T.P., Kauffman, M.J. 2015. Effects of climate and plant phenology on recruitment of moose at the southern extent of their range. Oecologia. 178: 1137-1148.

Murray, D.L., Steury, T.D., Roth, J.D. 2008. Assessment of Canada Lynx Research and Conservation Needs in the Southern Range: Another Kick at the Cat. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(7): 1463-1472.

National Wildlife Federation. 2013a. Nowhere to Run: Big Game Wildlife in a Warming World. Accessed online: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/NowheretoRun-BigGameWildlife-LowResFinal_110613.ashx

National Wildlife Federation. 2013b. Shifting Skies: Migratory Birds in a Warming World. Accessed online: https://www.nwf.org/pdf/Reports/NWF_Migratory_Birds_Report_web_Final.pdf

Niedzielski, B. and Bowman, J. 2015. Survival and cause-specific mortality of the female eastern wild turkey at its northern range edge. Wildlife Research. 41(7): 545-551.

Pease, A. and Paukert, C. n.d. Potential effects of climate change on smallmouth bass growth in streams of the central U.S. Accessed online: http://fishhabclimate.org/sites/default/files/documents/SMB%20growth%20fact%20sheet.pdf

Post, E. and Stenseth, N.C. 1998. Large-scale climatic fluctuation and population dynamics of moose and white-tailed deer. Journal of Animal Ecology. 67: 537-543.

Razgour, O., Juste, J., Ibanez, C., Kiefer, A., Rebelo, H., Puechmaille, S.J., Arlettaz, R., Burke, T., Dawson, D.A., Beaumont, M., Jones, G. 2013. The shaping of genetic variation in edge-of-range populations under past and future climate change. Ecology Letters. 16(10): 1258-1266.

Rodenhouse, N.L., Matthews, S.N., McFarland, K.P., Lambert, J.D., Iverson, L.R., Prasad, A., Sillett, T.S., Holmes, R.T. 2008. Potential effects of climate change on birds of the Northeast. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change. 13: 517-540.

Sherwin, H.A., Montgomery, W.I., Lundy, M.G. 2012. Review: The impact and implications of climate change for bats. Mammal Review. 43(3): 18pp.

Siegel, R.B., Pyle, P., Thorne, J.H., Holguin, A.J., Howell, C.A., Stock, S., Tingley, M.W. 2014. Vulnerability of birds to climate change in California’s Sierra Nevada. Avian Conservation & Ecology. 9(1), No. 7.

Street, G.M., Rodgers, A.R., Fryxell, J.M. 2015. Mid-day temperature variation influences seasonal habitat selection by moose. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 79(3): 505-512.

Tape, K.D., Christie, K., Carroll, G., O’Donnell, J.A. 2015. Novel wildlife in the Arctic: the influence of changing riparian ecosystems and shrub habitat expansion on snowshoe hares. Global Change Biology. 22(1): 12pp.

Tuberville, T.D., Andrews, K.M., Sperry, J.H., Grosse, A.M. 2015. Use of the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index as an Assessment Tool for Reptiles and Amphibians: Lessons Learned. Environmental Management. 56(4): 822-834.

Van Hemert, C., Pearce, J.M., Handel, C.M. 2014. Wildlife health in a rapidly changing North: focus on avian disease. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 12(10): 548-556.

Williford, D., Deyoung, R.W., Honeycutt, R.L., Brennan, L.A., Hernandez, F. 2016. Phylogeography of the bobwhite (Colinus) quails. Wildlife Monographs. 193(1):1-49.

Wright, A.N., Schwartz, M.W., Hijmans, R.J., Shaffer, H.B. 2015. Advances in climate models from CMIP3 to CMIP5 do not change predictions of future habitat suitability for California reptiles and amphibians. Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-015-1552-6

Wu, J. 2016. Detection and attribution of the effects of climate change on bat distributions over the last 50 years. Climatic Change. 134(4): 681-696.

Yan, C., Stenseth, N.C., Krebs, C.J., Zhang, Z. 2013. Linking climate change to population cycles of hares and lynx. Global Change Biology. 19: 3263-3271.

Zimova, M., Mills, L.S., Nowak, J.J. 2016. High fitness costs of climate change-induced camouflage mismatch. Ecology Letters. 19(3): 299-307.