Forest genetic resources and adaptation of forest management to climate change in Europe

Transcription

1 Forest genetic resources and adaptation of forest management to climate change in Europe Jarkko Koskela EUFORGEN Coordinator Bioversity International Regional Office for Europe, Rome NordGen Forest: Nordic forests in a changing climate Selfoss, Iceland, August 2008

2 Summary European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) Establishment of a European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources (EUFGIS) The role of forest genetic resources in forest management under climate change Bioversity-IUFRO-MCPFE workshop on climate change and forest genetic diversity in Paris in 2006 Discussions within the EUFORGEN Networks

3 EUFORGEN A collaborative mechanism among countries to promote conservation and sustainable use of FGR in Europe Established in October 1994 to implement a resolution of the pan-european forest policy process (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, MCPFE) Resolution S2: Conservation of forest genetic resources, Strasbourg Conference, 1990 Resolution V4: Conserving and enhancing forest biological diversity in Europe, Vienna, 2003 Warsaw Declaration, 2007

4 EUFORGEN Member countries (34) National Coordinators -> Steering Committee Secretariat (Bioversity International) Management Committee (Bioversity, FAO) EUFORGEN Networks (participated by 108 experts, scientists and policy-makers) Forest Management Network Conifers Network Scattered Broadleaves Network Stand-forming Broadleaves Network

5 EUFORGEN Objectives of Phase III ( ): Promote practical implementation of gene conservation and appropriate use of genetic resources as an integral part of sustainable forest management Facilitate further development of methods to conserve genetic diversity of European forests Make available and disseminate reliable information on forest genetic resources in Europe

6 Forest Management Network Surveys on: policies tools to promote the use of high-quality forest reproductive material (Nordic->Europe) policies and practices related to gene conservation and forest management examples of inappropriate use of FRM Impacts of climate change on forest management and FGR conservation Economic aspects of forest genetic diversity

7 Policy tools and use of FRM Most countries (11/17) have specific requirements or regulations that promote the use of high quality FRM, often supported by grant schemes Availability of high quality FRM is rarely a problem Researchers and professionals are well aware of the benefits of using such material Bottleneck at the implementation level (forest owners, advisers, contractors, etc) Price of FRM -> cheap material is of low quality in most cases High quality of FRM -> physiological quality, genetic quality is commonly neglected

8 Policies and practices Diversity of forest management practices Most countries have a National Forest Programme (16/22); FGR are often mentioned but addressed in detail in very few countries Many countries (14) have an adaptation strategy to climate change; the role of FGR highlighted in general way, if at all Most countries promote the use of native tree species (19) and local provenances (18) Several countries (9) discourage or ban use of exotic species and/or non-local provenances

9 Gene conservation strategies Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and sycamore (A. pseudoplatanus) Black alder (Alnus glutinosa) Chestnut (Castanea sativa) Ash (Fraxinus spp.) Walnut (Juglans regia) Wild fruit trees (Prunus avium, Malus sylvestris, Pyrus pyraster) Mountain ash (Sorbus spp.) Lime (Tilia cordata) Elms (Ulmus spp.) Norway spruce (Picea abies) Black poplar (Populus nigra) European white oaks (Quercus petraea, Q. robur) Cork oak (Q. suber)

10 Technical Guidelines Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) Field map (A. campestre) Black alder (Alnus glutinosa) Chestnut (Castanea sativa) Common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) Oriental sweet gum (Liquidambar orientalis) Wild apple and pear (Malus sylvestris, Pyrus pyraster) Black poplar (Populus nigra) Wild cherry (Prunus avium) European white oaks (Quercus petraea, Q. robur) Service tree (Sorbus domestica) Wild service tree (S. torminalis) Lime (Tilia cordata) White elm (Ulmus laevis) Silver fir (Abies alba) Norway spruce (Picea abies) Swiss stone pine (Pinus cembra) Aleppo and Brutia pines (Pinus halepensis / P. brutia) Black pine (P. nigra) Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea) Scots pine (P. sylvestris)

11 Distribution maps Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) Sessile oak (Quercus petraea)

12 Present activities Development of common action plans (linking gene conservation units of forest trees at pan- European level) Species distribution maps Minimum requirements for dynamic gene conservation units of forest trees Geo-referenced data Integrated maps (distribution range, the units, climate, distribution of genetic diversity, etc) Gaps in gene conservation efforts Promote practical gene conservation at national level

13 Information on FGR Phase I & Phase II: country reports on FGR conservation presented at the EUFORGEN Network meetings Phase III: a report on the state of FGR in Europe scheduled for 2009 Data on FGR collected for the MCPFE process to monitor progress made in implementing sustainable forest management in Europe State of the World s FGR report by 2013 (FAO)

14 5 th Ministerial Conference, Nov

15 State of Europe s Forests 2007 Trends in implementation of sustainable forest management in Europe (1990, 2000 and 2005) Indicator 4.6 of the pan-european C&I for sustainable forest management area managed for conservation and utilisation of forest tree genetic resources (in situ and ex situ gene conservation) area managed for seed production

16 State of Europe s Forests 2007 Data collection EUFORGEN National Coordinators contacted gene conservation and seed production of major European tree species (i.e. those listed under the Council Directive (1999/105/EC) on the marketing of forest reproductive material and those ones the EUFORGEN Networks have been working with) Results presented in the report total areas for each country (38) total areas for selected species

17 Indicator tree species, subspecies and hybrids The total area managed for in situ gene conservation increased from 316,000 ha to 748,000 ha (59->93 species) The area managed for ex situ gene conservation increased from 3,000 ha to 7,000 ha (56->85 species) The areas managed for seed production from 464,000 ha to 528,000 ha (85-> 90 species)

18 In situ conifers ( 000 ha) Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Abies alba Larix decidua Pinus nigra Pinus brutia Pinus leucodermis Larix sibirica Pinus pinaster Pinus cembra Pinus halepensis Pinus pinea Pseudotsuga menziesii Taxus baccata Abies pinsapo Larix kaempferi Larix x eurolepis Abies grandis Picea sitchensis Pinus contorta Abies cephalonica Cedrus atlantica Cedrus libani Pinus canariensis Pinus radiata %

19 In situ broadleaves ( 000 ha) Fagus sylvatica Quercus petraea Quercus robur Acer pseudoplatanus Fraxinus excelsior Carpinus betulus Tilia cordata Betula pendula Quercus frainetto Quercus cerris Quercus pubescens Ulmus glabra Prunus avium Quercus ilex Sorbus torminalis Alnus glutinosa Populus tremula Tilia platyphyllos Castanea sativa Sorbus aucuparia Betula pubescens Fraxinus angustifolia Populus nigra Acer campestre Acer platanoides Ulmus laevis Robinia pseudoacacia Quercus rubra Alnus incana Populus alba Junglas regia Pyrus pyraster Sorbus domestica Quercus suber %

20 Ex situ conifers ( 000 ha) Pinus sylvestris Picea abies Larix decidua Pseudotsuga menziesii Abies alba Pinus nigra Picea sitchensis Pinus pinaster Pinus contorta Pinus cembra Pinus brutia Larix x eurolepis Taxus baccata Pinus halepensis Abies grandis Larix sibirica Larix kaempferi Pinus pinea Pinus radiata Cedrus atlantica Cedrus libani Abies cephalonica Abies pinsapo Pinus canariensis Pinus leucodermis %

21 Ex situ broadleaves ( 000 ha) Quercus robur Fagus sylvatica Betula pendula Populus nigra Acer pseudoplatanus Quercus petraea Robinia pseudoacacia Prunus avium Alnus glutinosa Fraxinus excelsior Quercus suber Populus tremula Tilia cordata Sorbus torminalis Junglas regia Ulmus glabra Ulmus laevis Populus alba Castanea sativa Carpinus betulus Sorbus domestica Quercus rubra Sorbus aucuparia Betula pubescens Pyrus pyraster Quercus frainetto Acer campestre Alnus incana Acer platanoides Tilia platyphyllos Quercus pubescens Fraxinus angustifolia Quercus cerris Quercus ilex %

22 Seed production conifers ( 000 ha) Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Pinus nigra Abies alba Pinus brutia Larix decidua Pinus pinaster Pinus pinea Cedrus libani Pinus halepensis Pseudotsuga menziesii Pinus cembra Abies cephalonica Picea sitchensis Pinus contorta Cedrus atlantica Pinus heldreichii/leucodermis Larix kaempferi Pinus radiata Larix x eurolepis Pinus canariensis Larix sibirica Taxus baccata Abies grandis Abies pinsapo 63%

23 Seed production broadleaves ( 000 ha) Fagus sylvatica Quercus petraea Quercus robur Quercus suber Quercus frainetto Fraxinus excelsior Quercus ilex Quercus cerris Alnus glutinosa Robinia pseudoacacia Acer pseudoplatanus Quercus rubra Tilia cordata Betula pendula Castanea sativa Prunus avium Carpinus betulus Fraxinus angustifolia Tilia platyphyllos Betula pubescens Populus tremula Ulmus glabra Acer platanoides Populus nigra Pyrus pyraster Populus alba Sorbus aucuparia Junglas regia Sorbus torminalis Quercus pubescens Acer campestre Sorbus domestica Alnus incana Ulmus laevis 90%

24 State of Europe s Forests 2007 Positive trend but the level of gene conservation can be considered adequate for only a limited number of tree species in Europe The state of gene conservation is rather good for many stand-forming and widely distributed tree species marginal populations? In case of many scattered, rare or endangered tree species there is still a need to improve the situation Spatial distribution of the gene conservation efforts?

25 New project on FGR information Establishment of a European Information System on Forest Genetic Resources One of the actions co-funded by the European Commission (Council Regulation No EC 870/2004 on genetic resources in agriculture) 1 April Sep 2010 (42 months) Coordinated by Bioversity International BFW-Austria; SNS-Denmark; INRA-France; NLC- Slovakia; SFI-Slovenia; Forest Research- United Kingdom EUFORGEN member countries

26 Objectives of EUFGIS 1. Harmonize minimum requirements for dynamic gene conservation units of forest trees and develop common information standards for these units at pan-european level 2. Establish a network of FGR inventories in 40 European countries 3. Create a Web-based, permanent information system 4. Provide training on FGR documentation to national focal points in participating countries

27 European search catalogue on crops

28 Progress in EUFGIS activities Network of national focal points (34 countries) Workshop on FGR documentation, Denmark, Oct 2007 overall implementation of in situ gene conservation of forest trees how countries have organized the FGR documentation efforts IT tools and national information systems used Survey on in situ gene conservation of forest trees in Europe (feedback from 31 countries)

29 Where are the gene conservation units located? in some cases mainly Protected forest areas Other protected areas Seed production stands Wood Non-wood

30 What is the typical design of a gene conservation unit? A single plot A plot + buffer zone A larger area with subplots A larger area with subplots + buffer zone Other

31 What is a typical size of a gene conservation unit? < >100 ha

32 Ongoing EUFGIS activities Expert Group will finalize the pan-european minimum requirements for the gene conservation units and the data standards in autumn 2008 The requirements and standards will be tested by the project partners as part of their data collection EUFGIS meeting, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1-3 Oct 2008 Development of the information system underway

33 FGR and forest management Three approaches on how to use FGR under climate change (Hubert and Cottrell 2007) Maintain genetic variation and promote natural regeneration Assist migration of forest trees by planting different provenances and species Adopt portfolio approach -> plant a mix of different provenances alongside the current tree population

34 FGR and forest management Maintain genetic variation and promote natural regeneration Assumption: enough genetic variation exist within a tree population to produce individuals better fitted to the new conditions (or available via gene flow) Widely occurring vs scattered tree species Marginal populations and areas Local material is the best? Origin of the presumably natural forests or autochthonous tree populations?

35 FGR and forest management Assist migration of forest trees by planting different provenances and species Results from provenance trials -> significant variation in fitness-related traits Phenotypic plasticity -> how to define zones? Provenance trials usually last only one generation Early survival in competitive environment and reproductive fitness?

36 FGR and forest management Examples on inappropriate use of FRM (EUFORGEN Forest Management Network) It usually takes 5-10 years for problems to show up (frost damage, low vigour, susceptibility to pests, diseases, wind or snow, etc), sometimes more than 30 years! Areas affected often several thousands of ha Quercus rubra in France: 400,000 ha planted , 27,000 ha left in 2004 Cedrus spp. in France: 1st generation material failure while 2nd generation successful but after 100 years

37 FGR and forest management

38 Provenance regions The provenance regions in the UK are common for all species except Scots pine for which there is better genetic data and for which 7 zones exist within its native range in Scotland The zones have been developed using different criteria (major watersheds, geological fault lines, main roads, species distributions) plus the expert guess work There is no real genetic data to support the zonation of the country (J. Hubert, Forestry Commission, UK)

39 Provenance regions

40 Provenance regions Romania Fagus sylvatica Quercus cerris

41 Provenance regions Development of pan-european provenance regions would facilitate transfer and appropriate use of FRM -> challenging task British Columbia (Canada) streamlined its seed zones from 67 to 24 based on quantitative modelling approach (combination of biogeographic classification and provenance trial results) Need to avoid transfer of FRM over very long distances and the use of poorly adapted material

42 Challenges to forest management Regional and seasonal variation in model predictions for future climate in Europe Scenarios consistent that annual temperature increases more than 2ºC by 2080 compared with average temperatures of In northern Europe, increasing temperature is likely to increase growth and seed production

43 Challenges to forest management Extreme weather events Pests, diseases, fire Climate envelope modelling useful tool but: Do not take into account evolutionary processes or that species may change their ecological niche Migration potential of trees: km per 100 years, max 100 km per 100 years In northern Finland, Scots pine extended 6 km northwards during (Siren 1998)

44 Challenges to forest management Adaptation strategies (Lindner 2007) Take action to reduce negative impacts or take advantage of the opportunities posed by climate change Should increase flexibility in forest management Man-made systems and ecosystems Risk aversion and risk tolerance Diverse adaptation strategies leaves more options under uncertain future conditions Genetic considerations?

45 Challenges to forest management Economic considerations (Thorsen & Kjær 2007) Economic benefits of tree breeding efforts easier to valuate than forest genetic diversity Intrinsic value option value Genetic diversity support supply of many forest products and contribute to long-term health of forests Risk considerations are different for a forest owner/manager and society Increased use of forest genetic diversity provides flexibility for forest management and is a recommendable risk-reduction strategy

46 Paris workshop recommendations Policy makers in Europe should recognize the importance of forest genetic diversity in mitigating the impacts of climate change on the forest sector by expressing a commitment at pan-european level to incorporate the management of this diversity into national forest programmes and other relevant policies, programmes and strategies. Policy makers in Europe should promote forest management practices that maintain evolutionary processes of forest trees and support natural regeneration of forests, especially in areas where longterm natural regeneration is self-sustainable despite climate change.

47 Paris workshop recommendations Policy makers in Europe should take into account the potential for accelerating adaptation of forest trees to climate change through tree breeding and transfer of potentially suitable forest reproductive material by endorsing the development of pan-european guidelines for the transfer of forest reproductive material in Europe on the basis of scientific knowledge. European forest research community should carry out more interdisciplinary studies (e.g. tree physiology, forest genetics, pests and diseases, forest management and economics, and modelling) on the impacts of climate change on forests with the support of the policy makers.

48