Search

Aim: Forest herbs might be unable to track shifts in habitat suitability due to rapid climate change and habitat fragmentation. In this study, we quantified the role of dispersal limitation and the potential mitigating effect of large‐scale reforestation on the redistribution of the herbaceous forest plant species Primula elatior under climate change. Location: Europe. Methods: High resolution (100 m) landscape‐scale and macro‐climatic variables were combined to predict range‐wide habitat suitability using Maxent. Dispersal limitation was modelled, based on isolation‐by‐resistance (IBR) principles through integration of circuit theory and genomic data, to assess patch accessibility and metapopulation stability under climate change. Large‐scale reforestation was evaluated as a potential mitigating strategy by incorporating a land use change scenario into the distribution and dispersal models. Results: Landscape‐scale variables contributed significantly to the distribution of P. elatior (78.33%) and to the accuracy of our model (AUC = 0.81). Isolation‐by‐resistance (R2cond =.92) was driven by land use (45.5%), distance from rivers (36.4%) and elevation (18.2%). It was estimated that 46.4 ± 13.9% (mean ± SD of climate change scenarios) of the total distribution area would be lost due to climate change by 2050 and an additional 15.6 ± 1.7% (mean ± SD) of the distribution would not be accessible through migration. The median latitude of the patch distribution shifted 183.2 ± 34.8 km (mean ± SD) northwards and 58.1 ± 9.3 km (mean ± SD) to more maritime regions. The patch accessibility was low in these regions and the metapopulation stability decreased considerably in the south of the distribution. Reforestation mitigated 54.1 ± 18.2% (mean ± SD) of the accessible distribution area loss and 49.5 ± 4.2% (mean ± SD) of the decrease in metapopulation stability. Main conclusion: To alleviate the loss of the accessible distribution area of P. elatior under climate change, it will be required to integrate climate mitigation strategies (RCP 2.6), range‐wide afforestation, restoration of ecological connectivity and focused assisted migration to newly available habitat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The nexus between forest-based climate mitigation and health is poorly researched. • This scoping review identified exposure pathways and health co-benefits from forests. • There is potential for synergies between forest management and health benefits. • Interdisciplinary efforts are required for advancement of research and understanding. Climate change is a pressing global challenge with profound implications for human health. Forest-based climate change mitigation strategies, such as afforestation, reforestation, and sustainable forest management, offer promising solutions to mitigate climate change and simultaneously yield substantial co-benefits for human health. The objective of this scoping review was to examine research trends related to the interdisciplinary nexus between forests as carbon sinks and human health co-benefits. We developed a conceptual framework model, supporting the inclusion of exposure pathways, such as recreational opportunities or aesthetic experiences, in the co-benefit context. We used a scoping review methodology to identify the proportion of European research on forest-based mitigation strategies that acknowledge the interconnection between mitigation strategies and human impacts. We also aimed to assess whether synergies and trade-offs between forest-based carbon sink capacity and human co-benefits has been analysed and quantified. From the initial 4,062 records retrieved, 349 reports analysed European forest management principles and factors related to climate change mitigation capacity. Of those, 97 studies acknowledged human co-benefits and 13 studies quantified the impacts on exposure pathways or health co-benefits and were included for full review. Our analysis demonstrates that there is potential for synergies related to optimising carbon sink capacity together with human co-benefits, but there is currently a lack of holistic research approaches assessing these interrelationships. We suggest enhanced interdisciplinary efforts, using for example multideterminant modelling approaches, to advance evidence and understanding of the forest and health nexus in the context of climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A RCM is used to study the effect of LCC on climate extremes in Europe. • LCC significantly changes the occurrence frequency and duration of extreme climate. • Increasing understanding of land cover change-climate interactions. • Findings are helpful in developing future land management strategies in Europe. Extremes in climate and weather can pose significant challenges to economy, ecosystems and human health. Changes in land cover are one of the drivers for variability in frequency and magnitude of extreme climate at regional and local levels. In this study, a regional climate model (COSMO-CLM v4.8) is used to simulate effects in climate extremes from two different idealized land cover change scenarios in Europe. These two simulations involve abrupt large-scale conversion of today forestland to herbaceous vegetation (deforestation), and of today cropland to evergreen needle-leave forest (afforestation). A control simulation with today land cover distribution is used to identify differences in extreme climate. We find significant changes in extreme climate in both deforestation and afforestation simulations, with seasonal and spatial differences. Deforestation causes a warmer summer (with higher annual maximum temperature) and a colder winter (with lower annual minimum temperature). Afforestation slightly increases the average intensity of the hot extremes, although with high spatial variability (a reduction is common in several locations), and mitigates cold extremes in winter. Changes in extreme indices show that deforestation increases both the frequency and duration of hot and cold extremes, while afforestation causes a lower frequency of extreme cold climate. The two simulations show opposing results in the number of frozen days, as they increase for deforestation and decrease for afforestation. A drier climate is found after deforestation, whereas a wetter climate is observed after afforestation. In general, deforestation and afforestation increase the frequency of hot extreme climate as they reduce the return period and increase the return level. Overall, our findings show the potential critical effects that land cover changes can have on climate extremes, and the possible synergies that land management strategies and planning can have for climate change mitigation and adaptation at a regional scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]