Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
change on soil water availability and develop appropriate strategies to adapt to
the change or possibly mitigate negative climate impacts. Correlation models
can incorporate the effects of geology, elevation and specific soil properties
into a vulnerability index, estimating where crop or tree mortality will most
probably occur during periods of prolonged drought or flood. With some
awareness of this vulnerability, managers can implement practices to reduce
soil erosion or decrease competition for scarce resources in areas at high risk of
mortality, or they can focus soil quality restoration efforts in areas where
forest or crop resilience is expected.
Soil physical characteristics are reliable predictors of forest health as the
climate changes, because the temporal scale at which climate affects soil
development is much longer (thousands to millions of years) than the scale at
which climate is affecting trees (days, months or years). Soil characteristics
constrain water and nutrient availability to forests and crops alike, and hold
clues about how water might be moving through the soil. These factors can be
indicators of whether rainfall is likely to evaporate or infiltrate, as well as the
amount and duration of water storage in the rooting zone. Because they hold
or release moisture based on their texture, depth and chemistry, soils can either
mitigate or exacerbate climate change impacts to plants, affecting ecosystem
vulnerability to heatwaves, wildfires and pest outbreaks. Therefore, soil
characteristics hold the key for farmers and land managers seeking sustainable
means to meet the food and energy demands of a growing population.
d
n
1
r
2
n
g
|
8
References
1. P. J. van Mantgem, N. L. Stephenson, J. C. Byrne, L. D. Daniels, J. F.
Franklin, P. Z. Ful´, M. E. Harmon, A. J. Larson, J. M. Smith, A. H.
Taylor and T. T. Veblen, Science, 2009, 323, 521-524.
2. C. D. Allen, A. K. Macalady, H. Chenchouni, D. Bachelet, N.
McDowell, M. Vennetier, T. Kitzberger, A. Rigling, D. D. Breshears,
E. H. Hogg, P. Gonzalez, R. Fensham, Z. Zhang, J. Castro, N.
Demidova, J. -H. Lim, G. Allard, S. W. Running, A. Semerci and N.
Cobb, Forest Ecol. Manage., 2010, 259, 660-684.
3. K. R. Samabaraju, A. L. Carroll, J. Zhu, K. Stahl, R. D. Morre and B.
H. Aukema, Ecography, 2012, 35, 211-223.
4. A. L. Westerling, H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan and T. W. Swetnam,
Science, 2006, 313, 940-943.
5. D. McKenzie, D. W. Peterson, D. L. Peterson and P. E. Thornton, J.
Biogeogr., 2003, 30, 1093-1108.
6. P. Mote, A. M. Hamlet, M. P. Clark and D. P. Lettenmaier, Am. Meteor.
Soc., 2005, 86, 1-39.
7. C. M. Brasier, Ann. Sci. For., 1996, 53, 347-358.
8. H. H. Rogers, J. F. Thomas and G. E. Bingham, Science, 1983, 220, 428-429.
9. C. Rathgeber, A. Nicault, J. Guiot, T. Keller, F. Guibal and P. Roche,
Global Planetary Change, 2000, 26, 405-421.
