Abstract

Alpine treelines are expected to shift upward due to recent climate change. However, interpretation of changes in montane systems has been problematic because effects of climate change are frequently confounded with those of land use changes. The eastern Himalaya, particularly Langtang National Park, Central Nepal, has been relatively undisturbed for centuries and thus presents an opportunity for studying climate change impacts on alpine treeline uncontaminated by potential confounding factors.We studied two dominant species, Abies spectabilis (AS) and Rhododendron campanulatum (RC), above and below the treeline on two mountains. We constructed 13 transects, each spanning up to 400 m in elevation, in which we recorded height and state (dead or alive) of all trees, as well as slope, aspect, canopy density, and measures of anthropogenic and animal disturbance.All size classes of RC plants had lower mortality above treeline than below it, and young RC plants (<2 m tall) were at higher density above treeline than below. AS shows little evidence of a position change from the historic treeline, with a sudden extreme drop in density above treeline compared to below. Recruitment, as measured by size–class distribution, was greater above treeline than below for both species but AS is confined to ~25 m above treeline whereas RC is luxuriantly growing up to 200 m above treeline. Synthesis. Evidence suggests that the elevational limits of RC have shifted upward both because (a) young plants above treeline benefited from facilitation of recruitment by surrounding vegetation, allowing upward expansion of recruitment, and (b) temperature amelioration to mature plants increased adult survival. We predict that the current pure stand of RC growing above treeline will be colonized by AS that will, in turn, outshade and eventually relegate RC to be a minor component of the community, as is the current situation below the treeline.

Highlights

  • Treeline, defined here as the upper elevational boundary of trees existing in clumps (Körner & Paulsen, 2004), essentially marks the position of a threshold temperature regime for successful recruitment and upright tree growth

  • Possible reasons for this are several: (a) climate change in a local site may not necessarily follow the mean global trends (Körner, 2012); (b) the most dominant factor controlling treeline position may not be climate but disturbance-related, such as natural disturbance forming canopy openings (Cullen, Stewart, Duncan, & Palmer, 2001) or fires mediated by El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Brown & Wu, 2005); (c) even when treelines are truly climate-limited, there may be a lag in tree response to climate warming (Kullman, 1993; Lloyd, Rupp, Fastie, & Starfield, 2002)

  • Both abrupt treelines, characterized by a sharp boundary of tall trees giving way to low alpine vegetation, and krummholz treelines, characterized by stunted and deformed trees at the margin, have mostly failed to respond to climate warming with only a quarter of them advancing (Harsch et al, 2009)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Treeline, defined here as the upper elevational boundary of trees existing in clumps (Körner & Paulsen, 2004), essentially marks the position of a threshold temperature regime for successful recruitment and upright tree growth. In analysis of year-round temperature data from many treelines, the metric that best-predicted alpine treeline position was a growing season mean air temperature of 6.4°C, with a minimum season length of 94 days (Paulsen & Körner, 2014), which turned out to be surprisingly similar at treelines across bioclimatic regions (Körner, 2012; Paulsen & Körner, 2014) The conclusion from this approach of identifying the invariant factor determining a hard boundary for treeline position is supported by another global analysis, which found that diffuse treelines of the world most frequently responded to increasing growing season temperature (Harsch & Bader, 2011). Possible reasons for this are several: (a) climate change in a local site may not necessarily follow the mean global trends (Körner, 2012); (b) the most dominant factor controlling treeline position may not be climate but disturbance-related, such as natural disturbance forming canopy openings (Cullen, Stewart, Duncan, & Palmer, 2001) or fires mediated by El Niño-Southern Oscillation (Brown & Wu, 2005); (c) even when treelines are truly climate-limited, there may be a lag in tree response to climate warming (Kullman, 1993; Lloyd, Rupp, Fastie, & Starfield, 2002)

Objectives
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call