Forests of spruce trees and shrubs in parts of northern Canada are taking over what were once tundra landscapes--forcing out the species that lived there. This shift can happen at a much faster speed than scientists originally thought, according to a new University of Alberta study that adds to the growing body of evidence on the effects of climate change.

Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
The boundary, or treeline, between forest and tundra ecosystems is a prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments. As global temperatures continue to increase, the treeline is expected to advance but the new research shows that this shift will not always occur gradually but can surge ahead.
"The conventional thinking on treeline dynamics has been that advances are very slow because conditions are so harsh at these high latitudes and altitudes," said Dr. Ryan Danby, from the Department of Biological Sciences. "But what our data indicates is that there was an upslope surge of trees in response to warmer temperatures. It's like it waited until conditions were just right and then it decided to get up and run, not just walk."
Danby and Dr. David Hik, also from the Faculty of Science, reconstructed changes in the density and altitude of treeline forests in southwestern Yukon over the past 300 years. Using tree rings, they were able to date the year of establishment and death of spruce trees and reconstruct changes in treeline vegetation. The study is published in the "Journal of Ecology."
They found that a rapid change in response to climate warming during the early mid 20th century was observed at all locations. Treeline advanced considerably--as much as 85 metres elevation--on warm, south-facing slopes and tree density increased significantly--as much as 65 per cent--on cooler, north-facing slopes.
"The mechanism of change appears to be associated with occasional years of extraordinarily high seed production--triggered by hot, dry summers--followed by successive years of warm temperatures favourable for seedling growth and survival," said Danby.
Widespread changes to treelines could have significant impacts, says Danby. As tundra habitats are lost and fragmented, species and habitats are forced to move upwards as well. "The problem is that in mountainous areas you can only go so high so they get forced into smaller and smaller areas," said Danby.
These changes are of particular importance in these northern regions where First Nation people still rely heavily on the land, says Danby. Tundra species like caribou and sheep populations, which are important parts of that lifestyle, have declined across southwestern Yukon. As treeline advance, the reflectance of the land surface declines because coniferous trees absorb more sunlight than the tundra. This light energy is then re-emitted to the atmosphere as heat. This sets up a "positive feedback," the same process that is associated with the rapidly decaying Arctic ice cap.
"These results are very relevant to the current debate surrounding climate change because they provide real evidence that vegetation change will be quite considerable in response to future warming, potentially transforming tundra landscapes into open spruce woodlands," said Danby, who will also be participating in an International Polar Year project that will be examining treeline dynamics across the circumpolar north.
Dr. Hik is also executive director of the Canadian International Polar Year secretariat at the University of Alberta.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Alberta, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.


Comments: 12 ( 4 removed by Jack E. )
Imagine the American GOP political party believing they can predicting the end of the world, they are supposed to be the squeaky clean Christians lol.
I didn't realize Col. is the prototypical "boomer" - "it's all about ME....
The Menominee are known for their sustainable forestry. Incidentally, sustainable forestry is only way forestry will survive.
Jack: "...the corporate cons can't seem to get enough..."
Col. wants more lumber, but he doesn't seem to have noticed that housing starts are way down. "Unsustainable" does mean unsustainable.
Also, I have to give credit where credit is due. Many corporations, following the lead of science, have begun to shift their views on climate change - and their pracitices. Many of them have been urging the federal government for policy leadership for some time. Those urgings fell on deaf ears - until now.
I think a lot of companies are getting nervous over how serious the public is taking the destruction of our forests and environment.
I have been using a two acre wood lot to supply my fireplace and wood stove for 40 years allowing the trees to grow to a certain size and replanting a percentage of what I harvest and its very easy to do and I have the added benefit that I do not have to go farther from home to find the wood and it also allows me to keep a great amount of woodland untouched for my future generations who I hope will see the value of the open land and appreciate it. Because I live in the country which is not an option to everyone I get the advantage of being able to tell the difference in air quality over the cities that spew smoke almost 24/7.
I also realise that burning wood puts a certain amount of carbon into the air but I do not know if we can ever become 100% clean with any changes we make but we can certainly make positive changes.
We all can do something on a personal level to help clean things up but it will take a worldwide effort to make the environment clean and stable again.
The Menominee indians are setting an example that the rest of us should be following. Pretty good for a race of people that European immigrants always looked at as stone age throwbacks :-)
It depends on what you mean by 100% clean. Take how you harvest wood from your 2-acre wooded lot. The wood you burn is replace by trees you grow. So, yes, you are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but also you are drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere. I'm not sure if it is a 1:1 swap, but it is within a natural cycle. The problem with climate changing CO2 emissions is that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere that was "sunk" in the earth millions of years ago (coal, oil, natural gas). So, I don't worry about people burning wood when that wood is replaced with new trees - new trees, that is, which are varied with regard to kinds of trees. Monocultures aren't healthy either.
100% clean, socially, is something different, and it does, IMO, include an eventual flip in the ratio of emissions:sinks. Eventually, we have to sink more CO2 than we emit, and that will have to continue for some time to come. Once begun, however, it shouldn't be difficult to maintain, since the answer is in obtaining our energy from renewable/sustainable sources: solar, wind, geothermal (natural nuclear), and biomass.
Jack: "...it will take a worldwide effort to make the environment clean and stable again."
Other world governments (especially those of countries already most affected by climate change) have been ready for some time - waiting on the U.S. and China to take their proper leadership roles. That may now be possible.