1. Modelling plant response to nitrogen atmospheric deposition in some French ecosystems: progress and limits Simon RIZZETTO 1,2, Salim BELYAZID 3, Noémie GAUDIO 1,2, Arnaud MANSAT 1,2, Harald SVERDRUP 4, Anne PROBST 1,2 En collaboration avec : Jean-Claude GÉGOUT 5, Emmanuel CORCKET 6, Didier ALARD 6, Manuel NICOLAS 7 1 Toulouse University; INP, UPS; EcoLab (Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement) ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France 2 CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan 3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden 4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden 5 UMR LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France 6 UMR BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612 CESTAS Cedex – France 7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300 Fontainebleau, France

2. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 2 Context Improvement of the modelling approach EUNIS habitats classification  final goals = to formulate nitrogen dose-response relationships at a regional scale to upscale from individual sites to quantify “no net loss of biodiversity” Plants ecological response, biodiversity indicators Coupled biogeochemical – ecological modelling Impact of atmospheric deposition scenarios on forest ecosystems VEG table Species richness National scale ICP forest network ForSAFE-VEG model improvement of input data climate change scenarios

3. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 3 Presentation outline I)Material and methods: i.sites presentation ii.input deposition scenarios iii.model and validation II)Results: i.results ii.analysis III)Prospects: i.biodiversity indices ii.vegetation response

4. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 4 I.i. Sites presentation Data source: French ICP-Forest Network (ONF – RENECOFOR) -Part of the European network for forest health survey (since 1992) -Hundred forest sites Number of sites Operation types 102Site description Trees inventory and dendrometric measures Dendrochronology Observations: defoliation, pathological symptoms… Phenology Take litter fall samples Leaves analysis 2 soils description and analysis Inventories of vegetation ecology Meteorological data Phytoecological surveys, list of plants 17Open field and throughfall deposition Fog analysis Soil solution concentration and fluxes

5. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 5 I.i. EUNIS classification 1 Leguédois, Sophie and Party, Jean-Paul and Dupouey, Jean-Luc and Gauquelin, T. and Gégout, Jean-Claude and Lecareux, Caroline and Badeau, Vincent and Probst, Anne La carte de végétation du CNRS à l'ère du numérique. (2011) European Journal of Geography. ISSN 1278-3366 Two methods:  EUNIS = Corine land cover 2006 x French potential vegetation (Leguédois et al., 2010 1 )  Map of French EUNIS forest habitats  Some problems e.g.: Spruce site in G1.6 (Fagus woodland) !!  exhaustive plant species list on each site (ICP forest network)  use of EUNIS key to determine habitats  Similarity  Or correspondence problem

6. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 6 I.i. Sites selection code_placeEssenceIntitule_EUNIS_niveau3lambertxlambertyTypeniveau_1niveau_2niveau_3niveau_4niveau_5 CHS41Chêne sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus5189002286000MGG1G1.8G1.85 CPS77 Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus6281002383900MGG1G1.8 G1.81, G1.85 EPC08Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères7776002552800MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC63Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères 6489002084000MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC87Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères5594002088900MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 HET30HêtreHêtraies6966001902100FGG1G1.6G1.67G1.672 HET64HêtreHêtraies3559001798700MGG1G1.6G1.62 G1.622 à 624 SP05Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus9279001951700FGG4G4.6 SP11Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus5806001762600FGG4G4.6 SP38Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies8969002053800FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 SP57Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies9536002411900FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.1321 SP68Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies9575002337000FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 Selection of 3 sites: Sessile oak, Norway spruce, Silver fir code_placeEssenceIntitule_EUNIS_niveau3lambertxlambertyTypeniveau_1niveau_2niveau_3niveau_4niveau_5 CHS41Chêne sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus5189002286000MGG1G1.8G1.85 CPS77 Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus6281002383900MGG1G1.8 G1.81, G1.85 EPC08Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères7776002552800MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC63Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères6489002084000MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC87Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères5594002088900MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 HET30HêtreHêtraies6966001902100FGG1G1.6G1.67G1.672 HET64HêtreHêtraies3559001798700MGG1G1.6G1.62 G1.622 à 624 SP05Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus9279001951700FGG4G4.6 SP11Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus5806001762600FGG4G4.6 SP38Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies8969002053800FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 SP57Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies9536002411900FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.1321 SP68Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies9575002337000FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 Site Tree dominant species EUNIS habitatLoc.AltitudeTypelevel_1level_2level_3level_4level_5 CHS41Sessile oak Acidophilous Quercus dominated woodland North-W127 mMGG1G1.8G1.85 EPC87 Norway spruce Highly artificial coniferous plantations Center-W650 mMGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 SP57Silver fir Abies and Picea woodlands North-E400 mFGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132

7. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 7 I.ii. Input deposition scenarios sites  Oak scenarios  BKG < Spruce < Fir (for measured and modeled values) < MFR < GP < CLE (for all sites and all pollutants) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1800185019001950200020502100 Deposition (eq.ha -1.yr -1 ) Année Input deposition scenarios CLE GP MFR BKD

8. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 8 I.iii. Presentation of the model

9. 19th biennal ISEM Conference / Simon RIZZETTO Toulouse, 28 th October 2013 9 INPUTS Vegetation database = VEG Table (species ecological requirements) INPUTS Climate Soil Forest management Nitrogen deposition VEG Ecological model I.iii. ForSAFE-VEG: Biogeochemical-ecological coupled model ForSAFE Biogeochemical model OUTPUTS OUTPUTS = cover, species composition, critical loads (Sverdrup et al., 2007)

10. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 10 I. iii. ForSAFE parameterization Always interacting with the modellers  regular model improvements on: -Input variables:hard work on original data units variables adapted for ecological representativity -Model code and sites characteristics: integration of light requirements (Ellenberg et al., 1992; Gardiner et al., 2009) nitrogen foliar retention (Hagen-Thorn et al., 2006) relative foliar composition in terms of Basic Cations and Nitrogen (Sariyildiz and Anderson, 2005) fine roots distribution in the soil (Bolte and Löf, 2010; Bolte and Villanueva, 2006…)

11. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 11 I. iii. Model validation Validation: soil solution data (example of one spruce site) Comparisons between measured and simulated data: Significative statistic tests Measured data Simulated data STORM Differences between measured and simulated data for nitrogen… underlined by many authors de Vries et al. 2010 2. impact of natural disturbances on the woodland Two hypothesis: 1.lack of retroaction by the vegetation ( Moore et al. 2007 )  development of the GRAFT module by Swedish modellers

12. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 12 II. Results

13. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 13 II.i. Results: deposition scenarios 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1800185019001950200020502100 Deposition (eq.ha -1.yr -1 ) Année Input deposition scenarios CLE GP MFR BKD Soil solution parameters are hardly impacted by deposition scenarios, but not only… -Important similar variations in the soil solution response for each scenario For each selected site:  higher impact observed on CLE and GP scenarios on BSat and BC

14. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 14 II.ii. Results analysis Clear cut ForSAFE improvement: forest management parameters as input data: -age of the woodland -past and future cuts calendar -species growth characteristics and wood volumes possibly collected Soil solution parameters are impacted by: - forest management (short time scale) - deposition scenarios (long time scale)

15. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 15 II.i. Results: climate change scenarios -Impact of deposition scenarios (CLE > MFR) Soil solution parameters impacted by: -forest management on a short time scale -deposition and climate change on a long time scale -Obvious impact of climate change by 2080 -Observation: Impact deposition < Impact Climate change -No difference between CC and deposition during short term periods after clear cuts

16. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 16 II.ii. results: biodiversity indices 69% %: loss of biodiversity 58% 53% 46% 49% 54% 31% 29% 39% 2100

17. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 17 Conclusion - Discussion -Impact CLE > Impact MFR on basic cations and [N] in soil solution at century scale BUT -Climate change hardly impacts base saturation due to increase of mineralization i.e.:soil T°C =mineralization = [Basic cations] -Forest management impacts soil solution parameters on a short time scale -C/N and pH seem to not be sensitive enough to quantify “net loss of biodiversity” -Ecosystem, habitat and species effects exist actually

18. 24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 2014 18 III.ii. Prospects: vegetation response -Input data extrapolation -Results extrapolation on all the 102 sites - -Spatialisation at a continue scale Work on the VEG table still in progress: -species biological characteristics and/or species physiological and ecological response -need to add simulation on vegetation with VEG table -and vegetation feedback with the GRAFT module

19. Thank you for your attention ! Simon RIZZETTO 1,2, Salim BELYAZID 3, Noémie GAUDIO 1,2, Arnaud MANSAT 1,2, Harald SVERDRUP 4, Anne PROBST 1,2 En collaboration avec : Jean-Claude GÉGOUT 5, Emmanuel CORCKET 6, Didier ALARD 6, Manuel NICOLAS 7 1 Toulouse University; INP, UPS; EcoLab (Laboratoire écologie fonctionnelle et environnement) ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France 2 CNRS; EcoLab F-31326 Castanet Tolosan 3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S-21128 Malmö, Sweden 4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S-22100 Lund, Sweden 5 UMR LERFoB, AgroParisTech – ENGREF – INRA, 14 rue Girardet, F54042 Nancy cedex, France 6 UMR BioGeco, INRA, Université Bordeaux1, Site de Recherches Forêt Bois de Pierroton, 69 route d'Arcachon, 33612 CESTAS Cedex – France 7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F-77300 Fontainebleau, France