ferretti et al 13 09 17 - unece · 2017-09-19 · icp forests assessing and monitoring short- and...

ICP ForestsAssessing and monitoring short- and long-

term effects of air pollution on forests in Europe

M Ferretti (1), W Seidling (2)

and the ICP Forests community

(1) Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.

(2) Thunen Institute, Eberswalde, Germany.

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL

Talk outline

• Status: infrastructure and methods

• Relevance and results• Strenghts, weaknesses,

challenges, priorities.


The ICP Forests in brief

• Established in 1985

• 42 participating countries• Two major aims and monitoring networks:

Level I and II• SOPs, QA/QC• Collect, validate, process and provide data

on forest health, growth, soil and foliarnutrients, climate, deposition, ozone, phenology, biodiversity

• www.icp-forests.net


(ICP Forests

and FutMon, 2011)

• To provide a periodic overviewon the spatial and temporalvariation of tree, soil, and foliarcondition

• Ca. 6000 plots on a systematicbasis

• Forest health on annual basis

• Soil chemistry (10-15 yrs)

• Foliar chemistry (una-tantum)

• Plant diversity (una-tantum)

Monitoring networks – Level I


W

N

25 m

E

S

A. Cross-cluster sample, undefined shape and area

C. BioSoil plot, defined shape and area

B. Circular plot, defined shape and area

1 2

3

1

2

Monitoring networks – Level II• To gain a better understanding of cause-

effect relationships• Ca. 40-800 plots selected on a purposive

basis and ca. 260 variables measured on:

– Tree condition (annual)– Soil (10-15 yrs)– Foliar chemistry (2 yrs)– Tree growth (5 yrs)– Vegetation (5 yrs)– Phenology (cont.)– Ozone injury (annual)– Soil solution (cont.)– Deposition (cont.)– Air quality (cont.)– Meteorology (cont.)– Litterfall (cont.)

• Air pollution, response and covariateson same (sub-set of) sites.

(FIMC

I, 2003)


Buffer zonePlot

Organization and Expert Panels


The Collaborative DataBase


• Located at PCC.

• Input from Countries on agreed timelines.

• Validation routines.

• Continuous update.

• Link with QA/QC.

• Data available accordingto the ICP Forests data policy.

• >110 data requests over the past 8 yrs.

Talk outline





Relevance: ecosystem coverageICP level I plots classification by European fores t type, category level

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15


European forest types — category level1. Boreal forest

2. Hemiboreal forest and nemoral coniferous and mixed broadleaved-coniferous forest

3. Alpine coniferous forest

4. Acidophylous oakwood and oak-birch forest

5. Mesophytic deciduous forest

6. Lowland to submountainous beech forest

7. Mountainous beech forest

8. Thermophilous deciduous forest

9. Broadleaved evergreen forest

10. Coniferous forests of the Mediterr anean, Anatolian and Macaronesian regions

11. Mire and swamp forest

12. Floodplain forest

13. Non-riverine alder, birch or aspen forest

14. Plantations and self-sown exotic forest

Source: After Bohn et al., 2000.

EEA, 2007

Relevance: ecological data and processes


ww

w.ic

p-fo

rest

s.ne

t

De Vries et al. , 1998

“Further work on the long-term effects of atmospheric nitrogen and ozone inputs on carbon sequestration, biodiversity and other ecosystem effects, and their interaction with climate change and ecosystem properties”

GE.17-04641(E)

Economic Commission for Europe Executive Body for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Working Group on Strategies and Review Fifty-fifth session Geneva, 31 May-2 June 2017 Item 4 of the provisional agenda Policy response to the 2016 scientific assessment of the Convention

Policy response to the 2016 scientific assessment of the Convention

Submitted by the ad hoc policy review group of experts

Summary At its thirty-fifth session (Geneva, 2-4 May 2016), the Executive Body for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution established an ad hoc policy review group of experts on the 2016 scientific assessment of the Convention (see ECE/EB.AIR/135, annex II). It requested the ad hoc group of experts to present its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Working Group on Strategies and Review at its fifty-fifth session, which will then submit its recommendations to the Executive Body for consideration at its thirty-seventh session (Geneva, 11-14 December 2017).

The present document sets out the group’s findings, conclusions and recommendations. More extensive background information is provided in a corresponding informal background document.1

1 All documentation for the Working Group’s fifty-fifth session is available on a web page for the

meeting: http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=43511#/.

=

United Nations ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2017/3

Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 22 March 2017

Original: English


Relevance: policyPolicy response to the 2016 scientific assessment

ECE/EB.AIR/WG.5/2017/3


Relevance: policyNEC Directive, terrestrial ecosystems (Annex V)

Soil acidity, soil nutrients loss, nitrogen status and balance as well as biodiversity loss• Soil acidity: exch. BC and Al (10 yrs);

supporting: pH, SO4, NO3, BC, Al in soil solution (1yr);

• soil NO3 leaching (1 yr);• C/N; supporting: Ntot (10 yrs); • Nutrient balance in foliage (N/P, N/K, N/Mg):

(4 yrs).

Ozone damage to vegetation growth and biodiversity• Vegetation growth and foliar damage (1 yr);

supporting: carbon flux (Cflux) (1 yr);• Exceedance of flux-based critical levels;

(growing season).

Relevance: science and policyN deposition Tropospheric ozone


(Waldner et al., 2014, Atmospheric Environment)

Slope: −0.5729 ppb/year, Intercept: 43.9260

(Schaub et al., 2017, ICP Forests ER)

Relevance: science and policy.Climate Change (CC)

Hanewinkel et al., Nature CC, 2012


Impact on forest land economic valueForest, N, O3, and C sequestration

Ferretti et Global Change Biology, 2014

Relevance: science and policyBiodiversity


Dirnböck et al., Global Change Biology 2013

Relevance: science and policySustainable Forest Management


FOREST EUROPE, 2015: State of Europe’s Forests 2015

Relevance: science and policy Models and measurements

Gottardini et al., Atmospheric Environment, 2010

ICP Forests Level I plots and EMEP grid AOT40 within the same EMEP grid cell


Talk outline





Evaluation field Strenghts Weaknesses

Infrastructure Networks, database,QA/QC, expertize

Sometimes complex, not very reactive

Ecological coverage

Forest types, variables measured, ecological processes investigated

Possibly uneven coverage in terms of forest types and/or age classes

Policy- science relevance

Target entities;Stressors and responses at same (sub-set of) sites;Contribution to models.

Lack of appreciation and communication of results;Insufficient use of data;HM and Hg to be better covered.

Strenghts and weaknesses



Changes in data submissionLevel II (active plots data until 2015)Level I (active plots data until 2016)

(Rábago, I, 2017. Ecosystems Monitoring Networks under the CLRTAP (UN-ECE)

Evaluation field Challenges Priorities

Infrastructure Lack of resources;Reduced data submission in recent yrs;Little influence on Country activity.

Obtain support; Keep (and possiblyextend) the networks and monitoring activity.

Ecological coverage

Reduced geographical coverage.

Review of networks and variables.

Policy- science relevance

Contrasting evidence in e.g. CLs from experiments and field observation.

Reconcile exp-fieldExtend co-operation;Improve scientific outputs;Make full use of existing data (incl. models).

Challenges and priorities


Extending contacts and co-operationICP ForestsLevel I plots: ca. 7500Level II sites: ca. 780

EANETTotal sites: 2-54 (according to monitoring set-up)Catchment sites: 2Forest vegetation sites: 26Forest soil sites: 28

USDA FHMDetection Monitoring plots: ca. 8000Intensive Site Monitoring: 1-21*

WBEA AOSR Forest HealthNetwork sites: 23Tower sites: 5 (8*)

*planned Ferretti, 2013


http://icp-forests.net/

ferretti et al 13 09 17 - unece · 2017-09-19 · icp forests assessing and monitoring short- and...

Documents