Do ecosystem services have a biological cost? Ozone and climate regulation by Norway spruce forests along an Alpine altitudinal transect in Trentino, northern Italy

(1)

Do ecosystem services have a biological cost?

Ozone and climate regulation by Norway spruce forests along

an Alpine altitudinal transect in Trentino, northern Italy

Elena Gottardini, Fabiana Cristofolini, Antonella Cristofori

Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach (FEM) San Michele all'Adige, Trento, Italy

Marco Ferretti

TerraData environmetrics

(2)

Scheme of the presentation

• Introduction

– Ozone and impact on ecosystem services provided by forests

• The study on Picea abies along an

altitudinal transect on Alps

– Study design

– Measurements of environmental and tree response variables

• Results

– Environmental variables – Ozone removal

– Relationship between ozone removal and (i) structural/environmental variables

(ii) tree responses

• Discussion

– Functional interpretation of monitoring data – Possible biological costs of removing ozone

(3)

Ecosystem services

• Cultural

• Provisioning

• Supporting

• Regulating

• Slope stability

• Water cycle regulation

• Carbon storage

• Climate regulation

• Air pollutant removal

Introduction

Ecosystem services

benefits people obtain from

ecosystems

Regulating

services

of forests

(4)

Ecosystem services

• Cultural

• Provisioning

• Supporting

• Regulating

• Slope stability

• Water cycle regulation

• Carbon storage

• Climate regulation

• Air pollutant removal

Introduction

Ecosystem services

benefits people obtain from

ecosystems

Regulating

services

of forests

(5)

• Ozone can potentially

affect the vegetation:

- phytotoxicity

- high values

- wide distribution in remote

areas

• Forests may reduce

ozone through stomatal and

non-stomatal deposition

Stomatal uptake

Surface reaction

deposition

O

₃

Aim of the study is to assess the size of ozone

regulating services provided by forests

:

i) the portion of ozone removed by vegetation

ii) if ozone removal may have a biological cost for plants

with vegetation without vegetation 20% gradient

(6)

Scheme of the presentation

• Introduction

• The study on Picea abies along an

altitudinal transect on Alps

– Study design

• Results

(ii) tree responses

• Discussion

(7)

Fully randomized study on Norway

spruce along an altitudinal gradient

(900 - 1600 m a.s.l.) in Trentino, north

Italy

Study design

Picea abies L. 0 20000 40000 60000 0-300 >300-600 >600-900 >900-1200 >1200-1500 >1500-1800 >1800-2100 >2100 elev at ion, m a. s. l. ha

(8)

Fully randomized study on Norway

spruce along an altitudinal gradient

(900 - 1600 m a.s.l.) in Trentino, north

Italy

Study design

Picea abies L. 0 20000 40000 60000 0-300 >300-600 >600-900 >900-1200 >1200-1500 >1500-1800 >1800-2100 >2100 elev at ion, m a. s. l. ha

(9)

Statistical selection of:

- 3 + 1 sites (open area)

- 3 x 3 plot (forest)

750 m asl 900 m asl 1200 m asl 1600 m asl

Study design

open area forest plot Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

(10)

Environmental variables

In each forest plot and open

area, measurement at 2 m

of:

Passive sampling:

- Ozone

- Nitrogen dioxide

Data logger:

- Temperature

- Relative humidity

(11)

Tree response variables

• Chl a fluorescence (n=9 trees, 15 shoots per tree, C0 and C1)

Fv/Fm = maximum

quantum yield efficiency

• Crown condition (n=27 trees)

• Needle weight (n=9 trees, 900 needles per tree, C0) • Shoot length (n=9 trees,

45 shoots per tree, C0)

Tree health

Productivity

Photosynthetic efficiency

(12)

Scheme of the presentation

• Introduction

• The study on Picea abies along an

altitudinal transect on Alps

– Study design

• Results

(ii) tree responses

• Discussion

(13)

Altitudinal profile of T and RH concentration

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 10 20 Temperature, °C el ev at ion, m a. s. l. open areas forests 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 50 100 Relative humidity, % elev at ion, m a. s. l. open areas forests

(14)

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 2 4 6 NO2, g m-3 elev at ion, m a. s. l. open areas forests

Altitudinal profile of NO

₂

concentration

• Nitrogen dioxide

concentration decreased

with altitude, both inside

and outside forests.

• Concentrations are very

low (1.4 ug m

-3

₎

(15)

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 O₃, g m-3 elev at ion, m a. s. l. open areas forests

Altitudinal profile of ozone concentration

• Ozone concentration

increased with altitude,

both inside and outside

forests.

• Lower ozone

concentrations within the

forest (64.8 ug m

-3

_{) than in}

open areas (74.5 ug m

-3

₎

(P<0.001)

Site 0 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3

(16)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Week A O T40, ppbh 0 20 40 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Week O3 , ppb

AOT40 estimation

Weekly O

₃

concentration

_{Weekly AOT40}

(17)

Site 1 - 913 m a.s.l. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 31/7 A O T 40, ppb h

AOT40: differences between open areas and forest

UNECE Critical level

Site 3 - 1521 m a.s.l. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 31/7 A O T 40, ppb h Site 2 - 1177 m a.s.l. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 31/7 A O T 40, ppb h 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 AOT40, ppb h open area forest Mean site 1, 2, 3

(18)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 A O T4 0, pp b h open area forest Site 1 - 913 m a.s.l. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 31/7 A O T 40, ppb h

AOT40: differences between open areas and forest

UNECE Critical level

Site 3 - 1521 m a.s.l. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 31/7 A O T 40, ppb h Site 2 - 1177 m a.s.l. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 22/5 5/6 19/6 3/7 17/7 31/7 A O T 40, ppb h Mean portion of ozone removed by forest 56% Mean site 1, 2, 3

(19)

• Is there a relationship between ozone removal and

environmental/structural factors?

– Elevation

– Ozone concentration

– LAI

– Tree circumference

(20)

Ozone removal vs. environmental/structural factors

0 2000 4000 6000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Elevation, m a.s.l. O 3 r e m o val , ppbh 0 2000 4000 6000 50 60 70 80 90 [O₃], ug m-3 O 3 r em ov al , ppbh 0 2000 4000 6000 50 100 150 Tree circumference, cm O 3 r e m o va l, ppbh y = -1528.8x + 10789 R2 = 0.72 0 2000 4000 6000 2 4 6 8 LAI O 3 r e m o va l, ppbh P<0.05

(21)

• Is there a biological “cost” for plants because of

ozone removal?

Response indicators:

– Trasparency

– Shoot lenght, needle wheight

– Chlorophyll fluorescence

(22)

Ozone removal vs. tree responses

0 3 6 9 12 0 2000 4000 6000 Ozone removal, ppbh S hoot lenght , c m 0 2 4 6 8 0 2000 4000 6000 Ozone removal, ppbh Needle weight , m g 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0 2000 4000 6000 Ozone removal, ppbh Fv /Fm 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2000 4000 6000 Ozone removal, ppbh T rans par enc y, % ~ 900 m a.s.l. ~1200 m a.s.l. ~1500 m a.s.l.

(23)

Elevation vs. tree responses

y = 0.02x - 20.93 R2 = 0.47 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Elevation, m a.s.l. T rans par enc y, % ~ 900 m a.s.l. ~1200 m a.s.l. ~1500 m a.s.l. y = -0.0048x + 13.87 R2 = 0.98 0 3 6 9 12 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Elevation, m a.s.l. S hoot lenght , c m y = -0.00x + 7.39 R2 = 0.99 0 2 4 6 8 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Elevation, m a.s.l. Needle weight , m g y = -0.00x + 0.88 R2 = 0.97 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Elevation, m a.s.l. Fv /Fm

(24)

Relationship among tree responses

Nested within such a

superimposed effect of the

elevation, the various

response indicators were

related to each other

y = -0.00x + 0.85 R2 = 0.90 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0 10 20 30 40 Transparency, % Fv/ F m y = 0.01x + 0.78 R2 = 0.73 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0 3 6 9 12 Shoot lenght, cm Fv /F m y = -0.10x + 9.34 R2 = 0.80 0 3 6 9 12 0 10 20 30 40 Transparency, % Shoot le nght , c m ~ 900 m a.s.l. ~1200 m a.s.l. ~1500 m a.s.l.

(25)

Scheme of the presentation

• Introduction

• The study on Picea abies along an

altitudinal transect on Alps

– Study design

• Results

(ii) tree responses

• Discussion

(26)

Higher elevation > increase of abiotic stress (climate, solar radiation, ozone)

Lower photosynthetic efficiency Greater susceptibility to other stress Growth decrease Worse crown conditions

More biotic and abiotic damages

(27)

Lower photosynthetic efficiency Greater susceptibility to other stress Growth decrease Worse crown conditions

(28)

Lower photosynthetic efficiency Greater susceptibility to other stress Growth decrease Worse crown conditions