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 Castanet Tolosan, France 2 CNRS; EcoLab F Castanet Tolosan 3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S Malmö, Sweden 4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S 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, CESTAS Cedex – France 7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F Fontainebleau, France

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

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

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

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 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 Two methods:  EUNIS = Corine land cover 2006 x French potential vegetation (Leguédois et al., )  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

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April I.i. Sites selection code_placeEssenceIntitule_EUNIS_niveau3lambertxlambertyTypeniveau_1niveau_2niveau_3niveau_4niveau_5 CHS41Chêne sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus MGG1G1.8G1.85 CPS77 Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus MGG1G1.8 G1.81, G1.85 EPC08Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC63Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC87Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 HET30HêtreHêtraies FGG1G1.6G1.67G1.672 HET64HêtreHêtraies MGG1G1.6G1.62 G1.622 à 624 SP05Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus FGG4G4.6 SP11Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus FGG4G4.6 SP38Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 SP57Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies FGG3G3.1G3.13G SP68Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 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 Quercus MGG1G1.8G1.85 CPS77 Mélange Chêne pédonculé - sessile Boisements acidophiles dominés par Quercus MGG1G1.8 G1.81, G1.85 EPC08Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC63Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 EPC87Epicéa commun Plantations très artificielles de conifères MGG3G3.FG3.F1G3.F11 HET30HêtreHêtraies FGG1G1.6G1.67G1.672 HET64HêtreHêtraies MGG1G1.6G1.62 G1.622 à 624 SP05Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus FGG4G4.6 SP11Sapin pectinéForêts mixtes à Abies-Picea-Fagus FGG4G4.6 SP38Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 SP57Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies FGG3G3.1G3.13G SP68Sapin pectinéBoisements à Picea et à Abies FGG3G3.1G3.13G3.132 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

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 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) Deposition (eq.ha -1.yr -1 ) Année Input deposition scenarios CLE GP MFR BKD

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

19th biennal ISEM Conference / Simon RIZZETTO Toulouse, 28 th October 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)

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 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…)

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 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 impact of natural disturbances on the woodland Two hypothesis: 1.lack of retroaction by the vegetation ( Moore et al )  development of the GRAFT module by Swedish modellers

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

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

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 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)

24 TH CCE W ORKSHOP AND 30 TH T ASK F ORCE M EETING / Simon RIZZETTO Rome, 7 th April 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 Observation: Impact deposition < Impact Climate change -No difference between CC and deposition during short term periods after clear cuts

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

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

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

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 Castanet Tolosan, France 2 CNRS; EcoLab F Castanet Tolosan 3 Belyazid Consulting and Communication AB Österportsgatan 5C S Malmö, Sweden 4 Applied Systems Analysis and Dynamics Group, Chemical Engineering, Lund University, Box 124 S 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, CESTAS Cedex – France 7 Office National des Forêts, Direction Forêts et Risques Naturels, Département R&D, Boulevard de Constance, F Fontainebleau, France