Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forest genetic resources and adaptation of forest management to
climate change in Europe
Jarkko KoskelaEUFORGEN CoordinatorBioversity International
Regional Office for Europe, Rome
NordGen Forest:Nordic forests in a changing climateSelfoss, Iceland, 19-20 August 2008
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
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
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
EUFORGEN
Objectives of Phase III (2005-2009):
• 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
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
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
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
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, Pyruspyraster)
• 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)
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)
Distribution maps
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)
Sessile oak (Quercus petraea)
www.euforgen.org
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
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)
5th Ministerial Conference, Nov 2007
www.mcpfe.org
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
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
Indicator 4.6 1990-2005
• 135 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)
In situ – conifers (‘000 ha)
Pic
ea a
bies
Pin
us s
ylve
stris
Abi
es a
lba
Larix
dec
idua
Pin
us n
igra
Pin
us b
rutia
Pin
us le
ucod
erm
isLa
rix s
ibiri
caP
inus
pin
aste
rP
inus
cem
bra
Pin
us h
alep
ensi
sP
inus
pin
eaP
seud
otsu
ga m
enzi
esii
Tax
us b
acca
taA
bies
pin
sapo
Larix
kae
mpf
eri
Larix
x e
urol
epis
Abi
es g
rand
is
Pic
ea s
itche
nsis
Pin
us c
onto
rta
Abi
es c
epha
loni
ca
Ced
rus
atla
ntic
a
Ced
rus
liban
i
Pin
us c
anar
iens
is
Pin
us r
adia
ta
-204060
80
100120
140
160
180
1990
2000
2005
90%
In situ – broadleaves (‘000 ha)
Fag
us
sylv
atic
aQ
uer
cus
pe
trae
aQ
uer
cus
rob
urA
cer p
seu
dop
lata
nu
sF
raxi
nu
s e
xce
lsio
rC
arp
inu
s be
tulu
sT
ilia
cord
ata
Be
tula
pen
dul
aQ
uerc
us
frai
netto
Qu
ercu
s ce
rris
Qu
erc
us p
ube
sce
ns
Ulm
us
gla
bra
Pru
nus
avi
um
Que
rcu
s ile
xS
orbu
s to
rmin
alis
Aln
us
glu
tinos
aP
opu
lus
trem
ula
Tilia
pla
typ
hyllo
sC
ast
an
ea s
ativ
aS
orb
us a
ucup
aria
Be
tula
pub
esc
ens
Fra
xin
us
ang
ustif
olia
Po
pulu
s n
igra
Ace
r ca
mp
estr
eA
cer
pla
tano
ide
sU
lmu
s la
evi
sR
obi
nia
pse
ud
oaca
cia
Que
rcu
s ru
bra
Aln
us in
can
aP
opu
lus
alb
aJu
ngla
s re
gia
Pyr
us
pyra
ste
rS
orb
us
do
me
stic
aQ
ue
rcu
s su
be
r
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1990
2000
2005
52%
Ex situ – conifers (‘000 ha)
Pin
us s
ylve
stris
Pic
ea a
bies
Larix
dec
idua
Pse
udot
suga
men
zies
iiA
bies
alb
aP
inus
nig
raP
icea
sitc
hens
isP
inus
pin
aste
rP
inus
con
tort
aP
inus
cem
bra
Pin
us b
rutia
Larix
x e
urol
epis
Tax
us b
acca
taP
inus
hal
epen
sis
Abi
es g
rand
isLa
rix s
ibiri
caLa
rix k
aem
pfer
iP
inus
pin
eaP
inus
rad
iata
Ced
rus
atla
ntic
aC
edru
s lib
ani
Abi
es c
epha
loni
caA
bies
pin
sapo
Pin
us c
anar
iens
isP
inus
leuc
oder
mis
0
1
2
3
1990
2000
2005
81%
Ex situ – broadleaves (‘000 ha)
Qu
erc
us
rob
ur
Fa
gu
s sy
lva
tica
Be
tula
pe
nd
ula
Po
pu
lus
nig
raA
cer
pse
ud
op
lata
nu
sQ
uerc
us
petr
ae
aR
ob
inia
pse
ud
oa
caci
aP
run
us
avi
um
Aln
us
glu
tino
saF
raxi
nu
s e
xce
lsio
rQ
ue
rcu
s su
be
rP
op
ulu
s tr
em
ula
Tili
a c
ord
ata
So
rbu
s to
rmin
alis
Jun
gla
s re
gia
Ulm
us
gla
bra
Ulm
us
lae
vis
Po
pu
lus
alb
aC
ast
an
ea
sativ
aC
arp
inu
s b
etu
lus
Sor
bu
s d
om
est
ica
Qu
erc
us
rub
raS
orb
us
au
cup
aria
Be
tula
pu
be
scen
sP
yru
s p
yra
ste
rQ
ue
rcu
s fr
ain
etto
Ace
r ca
mp
est
reA
lnu
s in
can
aA
cer
pla
tan
oid
es
Tili
a p
laty
ph
yllo
sQ
ue
rcu
s p
ub
esc
en
sFr
axi
nu
s a
ng
ust
ifolia
Qu
erc
us
cerr
isQ
ue
rcu
s ile
x
-
1
2
3
1990
2000
2005
53%
Seed production – conifers (‘000 ha)
Pic
ea a
bies
Pin
us s
ylve
stris
Pin
us n
igra
Abi
es a
lba
Pin
us b
rutia
Larix
dec
idua
Pin
us p
inas
ter
Pin
us p
inea
Ced
rus
liban
iP
inus
hal
epen
sis
Pse
udot
suga
men
zies
iiP
inus
cem
bra
Abi
es c
epha
loni
caP
icea
sitc
hens
isP
inus
con
tort
aC
edru
s at
lant
ica
Pin
ushe
ldre
ichi
i/leu
code
rmis
Larix
kae
mpf
eri
Pin
us r
adia
ta
Larix
x e
urol
epis
Pin
us c
anar
iens
is
Larix
sib
irica
Tax
us b
acca
ta
Abi
es g
rand
is
Abi
es p
insa
po
-20406080
100
120
140
160
180
1990
2000
2005
63%
Seed production – broadleaves (‘000 ha)
Fa
gu
s sy
lva
tica
Qu
erc
us
pe
tra
ea
Qu
erc
us
rob
ur
Qu
erc
us
sub
er
Qu
erc
us
fra
ine
ttoF
raxi
nu
s e
xce
lsio
rQ
ue
rcu
s ile
xQ
ue
rcu
s ce
rris
Aln
us
glu
tino
saR
ob
inia
pse
ud
oa
caci
aA
cer
pse
ud
op
lata
nu
sQ
ue
rcu
s ru
bra
Tili
a c
ord
ata
Be
tula
pe
nd
ula
Ca
sta
ne
a s
ativ
aP
run
us
avi
um
Ca
rpin
us
be
tulu
sF
raxi
nu
s a
ng
ust
ifolia
Tili
a p
laty
ph
yllo
sB
etu
la p
ub
esc
en
sP
op
ulu
s tr
em
ula
Ulm
us
gla
bra
Ace
r p
lata
no
ide
sP
op
ulu
s n
igra
Pyr
us
pyr
ast
er
Po
pu
lus
alb
aS
orb
us
au
cup
ari
aJu
ng
las
reg
iaS
orb
us
torm
ina
lisQ
ue
rcu
s p
ub
esc
en
sA
cer
cam
pe
stre
So
rbu
s d
om
est
ica
Aln
us
inca
na
Ulm
us
lae
vis
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1990
2000
2005
90%
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?
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 2007 - 30 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
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
European search catalogue on crops
http://eurisco.ecpgr.org/
Progress in EUFGIS activities
• Network of national focal points (34 countries)• Workshop on FGR documentation, Denmark, 23-
24 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)
Where are the gene conservation units located?
Pro
tect
ed fo
rest
are
as
Oth
er p
rote
cted
are
as
See
d pr
oduc
tion
stan
ds Woo
d
Non
-woo
d
mainly
in some cases0
5
10
15
20
25
30
What is the typical design of a gene conservation unit?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
A s
ingl
e pl
ot
A p
lot +
buffe
r zo
ne
A la
rger
area
with
subp
lots
A la
rger
area
with
subp
lots
+bu
ffer
zone
Oth
er
What is a typical size of a gene conservation unit?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
<1 1-10 10-50 50-100 >100 ha
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
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
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 ?
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 ?
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
1970-2000, 27,000 ha left in 2004– Cedrus spp. in France: 1st generation material
failure while 2nd generation successful but after 100 years
FGR and forest management
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 zonationof the country
• (J. Hubert, Forestry Commission, UK)
Provenance regions
Provenance regions
RomaniaFagus sylvatica
Quercus cerris
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 biogeographicclassification and provenance trial results)
• Need to avoid transfer of FRM over very long distances and the use of poorly adapted material
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 1960-1990
• In northern Europe, increasing temperature is likely to increase growth and seed production
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: 10-70 km per 100 years, max 100 km per 100 years
– In northern Finland, Scots pine extended 6 km northwards during 1935-1995 (Siren 1998)
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 ?
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
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 long-term natural regeneration is self-sustainable despite climate change.
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.
