Abstract
In south-east Norway, in the hemiboreal vegetation zone, beech reaches its northern distribution limit and typically occupies the same type of sites as spruce. Under future climate change, this area is projected to fall within the temperate zone and beech to increase its distribution towards the north at the expense of spruce. However, such forecasts are based on very broad scale estimates and the knowledge of climatic adaptation and the competitive potential of the beech and spruce populations at these latitudes is scarce. Here, we use a dendrochronological approach to study the growth performance of neighbouring spruce and beech trees to climate variability over a period of 70 years. The two species responded quite similarly to variations in climate in the study area. Both showed increased incremental growth in response to high precipitation both in the previous and present year June, indicating that water is a limiting resource. In addition, beech showed a negative response to high temperatures in previous July and August, which is probably connected with growth reductions due to masting. Overall, spruce and beech in the hemiboreal zone show comparable responses to climatic variations as in the temperate zone. Due to the different drought-handling strategies of the two species, we suggest that the intensity of summer droughts and the variability between years are likely factors that would be decisive for which of them that will be more successful under future climatic conditions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Climate change is a key driver of species range shifts towards higher latitudes and higher altitudes (Chen et al. 2011; Steinbauer et al. 2018). Inevitably, such range shifts implicate competition among species that stand naïve when exposed to novel and previously unexperienced competitive interactions. The outcome of these interactions is determined by a multitude of abiotic- and biotic factors, and a key question is to what extent different species’ growth and performance, and thereby their competitive ability, are being directly impacted by climate change. Here, we take the advantage of a dendrochronological approach to study the growth performance in two coexisting and competing late successional tree species in relation to climate variability over a period of 70 years. In our study area, European beech (Fagus sylvatica, hereafter “beech”) meets its northern distribution limit, while Norway spruce (Picea abies, hereafter “spruce”) is within its core area in Fennoscandia (Fig. 1). According to pollen records, both species established there in the 13–1400 s AD (Bjune et al. 2009 and 2013).
Recent projections of future climatic conditions in our study area predict temperature increases around 2.5 °C, increased winter precipitation, but also an increase in days with drought during the growing season (Hanssen-Bauer et al. 2015; Kausrud et al. 2022). In line with this, modelling of the future potential distribution of natural vegetation zones suggests a northward shift of the northern range limits of tree species by 300 to 500 km (Kramer et al. 2010; Saltré et al. 2015) and by the end of the century, our study area is expected to fall within the temperate vegetation zone (Kausrud et al. 2022). Beech is thus expected to increase its future distribution significantly towards the north due to climate warming (Hickler et al. 2012). However, future projections for beech and other trees at their northern range limits are uncertain due to the fact that the climate requirements of trees are highly site- and species-specific (Kramer et al. 2010). There are for instance large variations in dormancy release between provenances (e.g. Basler & Körner 2012) and the length of the wood formation period varies with latitudes (del Castillo et al. 2016). Further, the knowledge of how beech and spruce perform in coexistence under the current climate in northern Europe is scarce.
The growth of beech and spruce in relation to climate is well studied in central Europe, where beech has its core area and spruce is approaching its southern natural distribution limit. Increment growth of both species is negatively affected by drought, both in the growing season and the previous year (Gutiérrez 1988, Biondi 1993, Selås et al. 2002, Lebourgois et al. 2010, Andreassen et al. 2006, Piovesan et al. 2008). The negative correlation between tree growth and previous summer temperatures is often related to the allocation of resources between fruit set and vegetative growth. (Piovesan and Adams 2001, Drobyshev et al 2010; Selås et al. 2002). In a large dataset comparing the radial growth of the two species along a gradient from southern Germany to alpine Austria, Zang et al. (2014) showed that spruce in general is more vulnerable to drought than beech, especially at the warm-dry end of the climate gradient. Under extreme drought years like 1976 or 2003, both species suffered, but spruce showed a stronger growth decrease than beech (Pretzsch 2005; Pretzsch et al. 2014). In alpine areas of Europe (Büntgen et al 2006) and southern Sweden (Grundmann et al. 2011), spruce increment growth has changed lately from showing correlations with early summer precipitation to a larger sensitivity to late summer temperatures. This pattern was not detected in south-eastern Norway (Andreassen et al. 2006). Norway is at the cold–wet end of beech distribution, and it is thus unclear if spruce is more vulnerable to drought in relation to beech in these latitudes. Beech at higher altitudes in Europe responds differently to climatic variation than beech in the lowlands (Dittmar et al. 2003).
Our main aim was to provide insight into the growth of spruce and beech under variations in climate at their north-western coexistence range limit, using tree-ring data. Such knowledge is a crucial for forecasting future performance under climate change and, as such, also for forest management strategies. Since both species are shown to be drought sensitive in central Europe, we hypothesize that both would be positively influenced by high levels of summer precipitation. Further, since our study area represents the northern distribution limit for beech, we hypothesize that beech should perform better than spruce in warm years.
Materials and methods
Study area
Our study area is located in the southern boreal vegetation zone (Moen 1999) and belongs to the Oslo Rift geological formation in SE Norway (Fig. 1). Here, the forest landscape consists of mixed and monospecific stands of coniferous and broad-leaved deciduous tree species, among which European beech and Norway spruce are most common. Two forest reserves with beech and spruce trees of about 100 years old (Table 2) were selected as study sites: Brånakollane Nature Reserve (N 59.19° E 10.05°, c.200 m a.s.l., 39.2 ha) and Dalaåsen Nature Reserve (N 59.30°, E 10.03°, c. 250 m a.s.l., 97.4 ha). The distance between the two sites is about 10 km, and both are characterized by rugged terrain, rather thin soils, and natural forest stand structures due to low logging activity. See Asplund et al. 2015; Ellingsen et al. 2017; Ohlson et al. 2017 for further information about vegetation conditions and forest disturbance history.
Data collection
Beech and spruce trees were sampled in close pairs to secure that the trees were exposed to similar growing conditions. The distance between trees in pairs did not exceed 8 m. Only dominant or co-dominant trees of comparable size were selected to minimize the influence of tree size-mediated competition (Fig. 1b and Table 2). We sampled 42 tree pairs in Brånakollane, and 39 pairs in Dalaåsen, resulting in a total of 162 sampled trees. All samples were collected during the growing season in 2014.
To test the comparability of the trees in pairs and among pairs, several environmental variables were measured: The stand density surrounding each tree in a pair was measured using a standard relascope (l = 60 cm, f = 1; Haglöf AB, Sweden). The diameter at breast height (DBH, 1.3 m above the ground) of each tree was measured with a standard calliper (Haglöf AB, Sweden). For each tree, two samples of the organic soil (excluding the litter layer) were extracted near the trunk, on opposite sides of the tree. The pH value of the standard prepared soil samples was measured with a SenTix 81 pH electrode connected to an inoLab pH 720 benchtop metre (WTW GmbH, Germany).
Tree-ring samples
The trees were cored at breast height with a standard ø 5 mm increment borer (Haglöf AB, Sweden). The samples were stored in labelled paper straws and air-dried for ca. 14 days. The dried samples were mounted on wooden boards and polished with sandpaper. The tree-ring width was measured with a LINTAB 6 tree-ring measurement station (Rinntech e.K., Germany) and a Leica M50 microscope (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Germany) at a precision of 1/100 mm. Tree-ring series were visually and statistically cross-dated using standard procedures (Stokes & Smiley 1996, Fritts 2001, p. 1–23, Speer 2011, p. 96–109.). The statistical cross-dating was performed using TSAP-Win software (ver. 4.69 h, incl. modules math and graphics; Rinntech e.K., Germany).
Climate data
Monthly mean temperature data were obtained from Færder meteorological station (Stnr.: 27,500; N 59.0272, E 10.5242; 6 m a.s.l.; eklima.met.no) approximately 33 and 43 km from Brånakollane and Dalaåsen, respectively. Precipitation data consisted of the monthly mean values of stations in the area defined by the Norwegian Meteorological institute as “Østlandet” which is a larger part of south-east Norway surrounding the study site. Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) was extracted from a global 1-degrees gridded SPEI database (https://spei.csic.es/).
Statistical analyses
Tree-ring series were detrended using a smoothing spline to remove long-term trends related to ageing and disturbances (Cook and Kairiukstis 1990). We used a spline with a 50% frequency cut-off at a frequency equal to two-thirds of each tree-ring series length. This is the default settings for method “spline” in the package dplR in R (Bunn et al. 2020; R core team 2020). Mean autocorrelation was calculated for raw and detrended tree-ring series (Table 1). First-order autocorrelation was identified in the detrended tree rings by visually inspection of PACF plots constructed in R. Standard and residual chronologies for spruce and beech were then constructed using the function “chron” in the package dplR (Bunn et al 2020).
The relationships between the yearly increment of each tree species and climate data were analysed by using the package “treeclim” in R (Zang and Biondi 2015). For each of the three climate variables precipitation, temperature and SPEI, we included monthly values for the previous year’s June to October and the current year’s April to September. The function “dcc” in “treeclim” is designed to address the problem of many correlated predictors in the analyses. We used the “dcc” function to analyse the relationships between yearly increments (residual and standard chronologies) and monthly climate conditions. Climate growth relationships were assessed for the period between 1950 and 2012 to avoid possible effects of logging, which took place in the period prior to 1950. The standard and the residual chronologies did not differ in the analyses, and we thus continued with the standard chronology in the climate analyses. We also performed separate analyses on chronologies from the two different study sites, but the results were the same in terms of statistical significance and correlation strength. We thus continued with the analyses based on one chronology for spruce and one for beech encompassing trees from both study sites. Differences in tree age, DBH, growth, tree basal area and soil pH between trees in the sampled pairs were tested with Wilcoxon signed rank test. Trends in summer (June, July and August) precipitation and mean temperature during the study period were analysed with a Mann–Kendall test and decadal change rates were calculating with nonparametric Sen´s slopes using the R package “wql”. We calculated resistance, recovery and resilience sensu Lloret et al. (2011) on raw tree width data of each tree using the R package pointRes with 4 years pre- and post-disturbance. We used linear mixed effects models to test how these indices varied between spruce and beech on the drought years (1955, 1959, 1975, 1976, 1983 and 2006) with tree pair nested within site as random effects. Response variables were natural log-transformed in order to comply with model assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity of residuals.
Results
The 1950 to 2012 mean (± SE) summer (June–August) precipitation and temperature were 278 ± 13 mm and 16.2 ± 0.12 °C, respectively. The driest summer was in 1976 with only 48 mm precipitation, while 1988 was the wettest summer with 597 mm precipitation (Fig. 2a). In our study period, 1997 was the warmest summer, with a mean temperature of 18.7 °C and the 1987 summer was the coldest (14.1 °C; Fig. 2b). Mean summer temperature increased with 0.15 °C per decade during the study period (S = 398, P = 0.018, Mann–Kendall), while precipitation showed no trend (S = − 29, P = 0.868, Mann–Kendall).
The wilcoxon signed rank test showed that the chosen tree pairs were comparable in terms of tree age (Table 2). Spruce trees were on average larger than beech trees, but there was no difference in tree age. The soil was more acidic below the spruce trees than below the beech trees (Table 2), even though the trees were growing just a few metres apart.
Beech and spruce increment growth were positively influenced by June precipitation and SPEI in the previous year and the growing season. (Figs. 3 and 4). The beech tree-ring width correlated negatively with summer temperatures of July and August of the previous year.
Based on climate data (Fig. 2) and the standardized tree chronologies (Fig. 4), we looked closer at the responses of spruce and beech to six significant drought years, 1955, 1959, 1975, 1976, 1983 and 2006. Beech had a higher recovery (i.e. growth increase after four year relative to the minimum growth during the dry episode) than spruce from the droughts in 1959, 1975, 1976 and 1983, while spruce had a higher recovery after the 1955 drought (Fig. 5a, Supplementary Table 1). Resistance, defined as growth in the drought year relative to pre-drought (4 years) levels, was higher for beech in 1955 and 2006 but higher for spruce in 1975 and 1983 (Fig. 5b, Supplementary Table 1). Resilience, the capacity to reach pre-drought growth levels (i.e. growth four years prior to the event divided with four years after the event), was higher for beach in 1959, 1975, 1976 and 2006, but slightly higher for spruce in 1983 (Fig. 5c, Supplementary Table 1).
Discussion
Spruce and beech are both late successional species, with their main distributions in different bioclimatic zones. The growth and interaction between the two have been widely studied in the temperate zone, where beech has its main domain and spruce is its margin. However, we know much less about their performance in areas where beech reaches its northern range limit, like in the hemiboreal zone in southern Norway. This study explores unique data from near-natural forests in this area.
Responses to climatic variations between years may be harbingers of what can be expected under future climatic conditions. Soil moisture influences the water flux through the tree and thereby the carbon assimilation and transport of nutrients (Breda et al. 2006, Backes and Leuschner 2000, Pretzch et al. 2014). Tree growth is thus highly dependent on soil water content, and the positive impact of precipitation on spruce and beech increment is thoroughly documented in central Europe (Lebourgeois et al. 2010, Mund et al. 2010). In line with this, the tree-ring data supported our first hypothesis that high levels of summer precipitation would increase incremental growth. Both species reacted positively to precipitation in June in the present and previous years. Present year June has also been shown to be the most important month in terms of increment growth for both species at higher altitudes in central Europe (Kraus et al. 2016). Further, stored carbohydrates contribute to growth in spring (Skomarkova et al. 2006; Sohn et al. 2012) and thus the climate of the previous season influences the formation of early wood (Rossi et al. 2008).
Overall, the two species seemed to respond quite similarly to variations in climate in the study area, as demonstrated by the rather small and non-consistent species differences in resistance to drought. On the other hand, beech showed higher recovery and resilience to drought than spruce in most of the serious drought years. This is supported by several other dendrochronological studies (Löw et al 2006; Van der Werf et al 2007; Pflug et al 2018). However, Pretzch et al. (2013) found beech to recover slower than spruce from the 1976 drought in southern Germany.
Strategies to cope with drought are known to differ between the species. For example, the isohydric spruce closes its stomata in periods of drought and may risk carbon starvation, whereas the anisohydric species beech keeps its stomata open and may risk xylem embolism (Pretzch et al. 2014). Although beech experiences a risk of hydraulic failure due to cavitation, its gas exchange and photosynthesis remain active under drought conditions (McDowell et al. 2008; Klein 2014). Spruce, on the other hand, is known to be susceptible to insect and fungal attacks after stress episodes like a serious drought (Breda et al. 2006). This is likely a consequence of a weakened defence capacity resulting from carbon starvation when photosynthesis stops. Following the drought summers of the seventies there were several summers with large bark beetle populations in Norway that killed many spruce trees (Bakke 1983). Moreover, studies from mixed forests in Germany (Nikolova et al. 2020) showed that also belowground strategies could be part of the explanation for contrasting responses of the two species after a severe drought event: beech produced thin, non-mycorrhizal fine roots enabling effective resource exploitation, while spruce increased root suberization instead of growth.
In the temperate zone, the temperature is thought to be secondary to soil water, as high temperatures mainly increase the negative effects of low levels of soil water (Breda et al. 2006) but have less impact if there is sufficient soil water. However, being in the colder parts of its distribution, we hypothesized that beech would benefit more from warm years than spruce in our study area, similarly to the improved growth of beech found at high elevations in central Europe (Pretzch et al. 2020). In contrast, we found no effects of temperature on increment in the present growing season for either of the species, indicating that temperature is less important when there is enough precipitation, also at higher latitudes. Instead, there was a negative effect of the previous year’s July–August temperature on beech tree-ring growth. Beech starts bud set in July and high temperatures in July–August have been related to the allocation of resources to the fruit set (Drobyshev et al. 2010; Müller-Haubold et al. 2013). The negative relationship between late summer temperature and beech increment might thus be related to masting, but unfortunately, there are no records of this from the study area. Spruce also shows masting behaviour, with positive relationships between previous summer temperatures and fruit set (Selås et al. 2002) and negative correlations between seed production and tree-ring growth (Koening and Knops 1998). However, the negative effect of temperature in the previous year on increment growth was barely not statistically significant in our data set. At high altitudes in both Germany and Czech Republic, spruce seems to benefit from high summer temperatures (Obladen et al. 2021; Altman et al. 2017).
In conclusion, precipitation seems to limit the growth of both spruce and beech also at the northern range limit of their coexistence. For forest management, this implies that other species should be chosen where there is a risk of summer drought or thinning from above could be an option in younger stands. Although the two species show the same level of resistance to drought, beech seems to have somewhat higher recovery and resilience, but this varied between drought years. Due to the different strategies of the two species, both above and belowground, the intensity of summer droughts and the variability between years are likely factors that would be decisive for which of them would be more suitable under the climatic conditions expected in the decades to come.
References
Altman J, Fibich P, Santruckova H, Dolezal J, Stepanek P, Kopacek J, Cienciala E (2017) Environmental factors exert strong control over the climate-growth relationships of Picea abies in Central Europe. Sci Tot Environ 609:506–516
Andreassen K, Solberg S, Tveito OE, Lystad S (2006) Regional differences in climatic responses of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) growth in Norway. For Ecol Manag 222:211–221
Asplund J, Ohlson M, Gauslaa Y (2015) Tree species shape the elemental composition in the lichen Hypogymnia physodes transplanted to pairs of spruce and beech trunks. Fungal Ecol 16:1–5
Backes K, Leuschner C (2000) Leaf water relations of competitive Fagus sylvatica and Quercus petraea trees during 4 years differing in soil drought. Can J for Res 30:335–346
Bakke A (1983) Host tree and bark beetle interaction during a mass outbreak of Ips typographus in Norway. J Appl Entomol 96:118–125
Basler D, Körner C (2012) Photoperiod sensitivity of bud burst in 14 temperate forest tree species. Agric Meteorol 165:73–81
Biondi F (1993) Climatic signals in tree rings of Fagus sylvatica L. from the central Apennines. Italy Acta Oecol 14:57–71
Bjune AE, Ohlson M, Birks HJB, Bradshaw RHW (2009) The development and local stand-scale dynamics of a Picea abies forest in southeastern Norway. Holocene 19:1073–1082
Bjune AE, Helvik I, Birks HJB (2013) The Fagus sylvatica forests in the Larvik region, south-eastern Norway: their origin and history. Veg Hist Archaeobot 22:215–229
Bréda N, Huc R, Granier A, Dreyer E (2006) Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: a review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Ann Sci 63:625–644
Bunn A, Korpela M, Biondi F, Campelo F, Mérian P, Qeadan F, Zang C (2020) dplR: dendrochronology program library in R. R Package Version 1(7):1
Büntgen ULF, Frank DC, Schmidhalter M, Neuwirth B, Seifert M, Esper JAN (2006) Growth/climate response shift in a long subalpine spruce chronology. Trees 20:99–110
Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024–1026
Cook E, Briffa K, Shiyatov S, Mazepa V (1990) Tree-ring standardization and growth-trend estimation. In: E Cook, L Kairiukstis (eds.), Methods of Dendrochronology: Applications in the Environmental Sciences, pp 104–123. Kluwer, Dordrecht. ISBN 978-0792305866
del Castillo EM, Longares LA, Gričar J, Prislan P, Gil-Pelegrín E, Čufar K, De Luis M (2016) Living on the edge: contrasted wood-formation dynamics in Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris under Mediterranean conditions. Front Plant Sci 7:370
Dittmar C, Zech W, Elling W (2003) Growth variations of common beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under different climatic and environmental conditions in Europe—a dendroecological study. For Ecol Manag 173:63–78
Drobyshev I, Övergaard R, Saygin I, Niklasson M, Hickler T, Karlsson M, Sykes MT (2010) Masting behaviour and dendrochronology of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in southern Sweden. For Ecol Manag 259:2160–2171
Ellingsen VM, Asplund J, Ohlson M (2017) Spatial and temporal patterns in seed predation as revealed by reciprocal experiments and video surveillance in neighbouring beech and spruce forests. Scand J Res 32:105–114
Fritts HC (2001) Tree rings and climate. The Blackburn Press, New Jersey
Grundmann BM, Bolte A, Bonn S, Roloff A (2011) Impact of climatic variation on growth of Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies in Southern Sweden. Scand J Res 26:64–71
Gutiérrez E (1988) Dendroecological study of Fagus silvatica L. in the Montseny mountains (Spain). Acta Oecol 9:301–309
Hanssen-Bauer I, Førland EJ, Haddeland I, Hisdal H, Mayer S, Nesje A, Nilsen JEØ, Sandven S, Sandø AB, Sorteberg A, Ådlandsvik B (2015) Climate in Norway 2100–Knowledge base for climate adaptation, updated in 2015, Norwegian Centre for Climate Services. pp 203
Hickler T, Vohland K, Feehan J, Miller PA, Smith B, Costa L, Sykes MT (2012) Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 21:50–63
VKM, Kausrud K, Vandvik V, Flø D, Geange SR, Hegland SJ, Hermansen JS, Hole LR, Ims RA, Kauserud K, Kirkendall LR, Nordén J, Nybakken L, Ohlson M, Skarpaas O (2022). Impacts of climate change on the forest ecosystem. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in endangered species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment. VKM Report 2022:15, ISBN: 978-82-8259-390-8, ISSN: 2535-4019. Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM), Oslo, Norway
Klein T (2014) The variability of stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential across tree species indicates a continuum between isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. Funct Ecol 28:1313–1320
Koenig W, Knops J (1998) Scale of mast-seeding and tree-ring growth. Nature 396:225–226
Kramer K, Degen B, Buschbom J et al (2010) Modelling exploration of the future of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) under climate change—Range, abundance, genetic diversity and adaptive response. For Ecol Manag 259:2213–2222
Kraus C, Zang C, Menzel A (2016) Elevational response in leaf and xylem phenology reveals different prolongation of growing period of common beech and Norway spruce under warming conditions in the Bavarian Alps. Eur J Res 135:1011–1023
Lebourgeois F, Rathgeber CB, Ulrich E (2010) Sensitivity of French temperate coniferous forests to climate variability and extreme events (Abies alba, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris). J Veg Sci 21:364–376
Lloret F, Keeling EG, Sala A (2011) Components of tree resilience: effects of successive low-growth episodes in old ponderosa pine forests. Oikos 120:1909–1920
Löw M, Herbinger K, Nunn AJ, Häberle KH, Leuchner M, Heerdt C, Matyssek R (2006) Extraordinary drought of 2003 overrules ozone impact on adult beech trees (Fagus sylvatica). Trees 20:539–548
McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T, Yepez EA (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739
Moen A (1999) Atlas of Norway. Vegetation, Norwegian Mapping Authority, Hønefoss
Müller-Haubold H, Hertel D, Seidel D, Knutzen F, Leuschner C (2013) Climate responses of aboveground productivity and allocation in Fagus sylvatica: a transect study in mature forests. Ecosystems 16:1498–1516
Mund M, Kutsch WL, Wirth C, Kahl T, Knohl A, Skomarkova MV, Schulze ED (2010) The influence of climate and fructification on the inter-annual variability of stem growth and net primary productivity in an old-growth, mixed beech forest. Tree Physiol 30:689–704
Nikolova PS, Bauerle TL, Häberle KH, Blaschke H, Brunner I, Matyssek R (2020) Fine-root traits reveal contrasting ecological strategies in European beech and Norway spruce during extreme drought. Front Plant Sci 11:1211
Obladen N, Dechering P, Skiadaresis G, Tegel W, Keßler J, Höllerl S, Seim A (2021) Tree mortality of European beech and Norway spruce induced by 2018–2019 hot droughts in central Germany. Agric for Meteorol 307:108482
Ohlson M, Ellingsen VM, del Olmo MV, Lie MH, Nybakken L, Asplund J (2017) Late-Holocene fire history as revealed by size, age and composition of the soil charcoal pool in neighbouring beech and spruce forest landscapes in SE Norway. Holocene 27:397–403
Pflug EE, Buchmann N, Siegwolf RT, Schaub M, Rigling A, Arend M (2018) Resilient leaf physiological response of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) to summer drought and drought release. Front Plant Sci 9:187
Piovesan G, Adams JM (2001) Masting behaviour in beech: linking reproduction and climatic variation. Can J Bot 79:1039–1047
Piovesan G, Biondi F, Filippo AD, Alessandrini A, Maugeri M (2008) Drought-driven growth reduction in old beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests of the central Apennines. Italy Glob Chang Biol 14:1265–1281
Pretzsch H (2005) Stand density and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): evidence from long-term experimental plots. Eur J Res 124:193–205
Pretzsch H, Schütze G, Uhl E (2013) Resistance of European tree species to drought stress in mixed versus pure forests: evidence of stress release by inter-specific facilitation. Plant Biol 15:483–495
Pretzsch H, Rötzer T, Matyssek R, Grams TEE, Häberle KH, Pritsch K, Munch JC (2014) Mixed Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica [L.]) stands under drought: from reaction pattern to mechanism. Trees 28:1305–1321
Pretzsch H, Hilmers T, Biber P, Avdagić A, Binder F, Bončina A, Bosela M, Dobor L, Forrester DI, Lévesque M, Ibrahimspahić A, Nagel TA, del Río M, Sitkova Z, Schütze G, Stajić B, Stojanović D, Uhl E, Zlatanov T, Tognetti R (2020) Evidence of elevation-specific growth changes of spruce, fir, and beech in European mixed mountain forests during the last three centuries. Can J Res 50:689–703
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.https://www.R-project.org/
Rossi S, Deslauriers A, Griçar J, Seo JW, Rathgeber CB, Anfodillo T, Jalkanen R (2008) Critical temperatures for xylogenesis in conifers of cold climates. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:696–707
Saltré F, Duputié A, Gaucherel C, Chuine I (2015) How climate, migration ability and habitat fragmentation affect the projected future distribution of European beech. Glob Chang Biol 21:897–910
Selås V (2002) Climatic factors controlling reproduction and growth of Norway spruce in southern Norway. Can J for Res 32:217–225
Skomarkova MV, Vaganov EA, Mund M, Knohl A, Linke P, Boerner A, Schulze ED (2006) Inter-annual and seasonal variability of radial growth, wood density and carbon isotope ratios in tree rings of beech (Fagus sylvatica) growing in Germany and Italy. Trees 20:571–586
Sohn JA, Kohler M, Gessler A, Bauhus J (2012) Interactions of thinning and stem height on the drought response of radial stem growth and isotopic composition of Norway spruce (Picea abies). Tree Physiol 32:1199–1213
Speer JH (2011) Fundamentals of tree-ring research. The University of Arizona press, The Arizona Board of Regents
Steinbauer MJ, Grytnes JA, Jurasinski G, Kulonen A, Lenoir J, Pauli H, Wipf S (2018) Accelerated increase in plant species richness on mountain summits is linked to warming. Nature 556:231–234
Stokes MA, Smiley TL (1996) An introduction to tree-ring dating. The University of Arizona Press, The Arizona Board of Regents
Van der Werf GW, Sass-Klaassen UG, Mohren GMJ (2007) The impact of the 2003 summer drought on the intra-annual growth pattern of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and oak (Quercus robur L.) on a dry site in the Netherlands. Dendrochronologia 25:103–112
Zang C, Biondi F (2015) treeclim: an R package for the numerical calibration of proxy-climate relationships. Ecography 38:431–436
Zang C, Hartl-Meier C, Dittmar C, Rothe A, Menzel A (2014) Patterns of drought tolerance in major European temperate forest trees: climatic drivers and levels of variability. Glob Chang Biol 20:3767–3779
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grant Number 225018).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MHL planned and did fieldwork, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. JA supervised fieldwork, analysed the data and took part in writing the MS. MG planned and did fieldwork, as well as taking part in discussions about the MS. MO participated in planning the study and preparation of the MS. LN planned and did fieldwork and played a major part in preparation of the MS. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Communicated by Marta Pardos.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lie, M.H., Asplund, J., Göhl, M. et al. Similar growth responses to climatic variations in Norway spruce (Picea abies) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica) at the northern range limit of beech. Eur J Forest Res 142, 1059–1068 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01576-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01576-7