Can forests rebound from severe drought?

Even after drought conditions subside, trees may take years to resume normal growth, say scientists.

Courtesy of Leander Anderegg
Stressed forests in the southwestern United States.
Courtesy of Leander Anderegg
Stressed forests in the southwestern United States.

It's no surprise that droughts can severely weaken forests. But what happens when the drought ends?

Traditionally, climate models have operated under the assumption that forests bounce back quickly from periods of extreme stress. But new research, published Thursday in the journal Science, suggests that trees may take years to resume normal growth after a period of drought.

"It's probably not too surprising that trees don't seem to recover from severe drought immediately," lead author William Anderegg told the Monitor. "A large body of plant physiological research has studied drought stress and damage, and repair of that damage is rarely observed as perfect or immediate."

He added, "What surprised us was how widespread and pervasive this delayed recovery from drought was."

Dr. Anderegg, who studies climate change at Princeton University, found that living trees took an average of two to four years to recover post-drought. There was just one exception: California and Mediterranean regions actually grew faster after a drought.

"We don't have a clear answer as to why this was," Anderegg says. "One possibility is that these regions tended to be dominated by oak forests, and we found that oaks tended to recover relatively quickly."

Or maybe the droughts killed off some trees entirely, he theorizes, so the surviving trees had more light and nutrients available. "Without more detailed studies, we won't know for sure," he says.

Each year, forests take in about a quarter of all human carbon dioxide emissions. By absorbing CO2 and cycling oxygen back into the atmosphere, trees slow the progression of climate change. But Anderegg and colleagues found that trees take in significantly less carbon during and after drought.

"Forests are on average still taking up carbon," Anderegg says, but that could change.

"With more intense and frequent droughts, forests could spend more time recovering, and trees may start dying en masse from drought, fire, and infestations," he explains. "This has the potential to drive forests to become carbon sources to the atmosphere, which would accelerate climate change and start a vicious cycle."

More frequent drought and recovery cycles could cause serious long-term troubles. Anderegg worries that massive forest die-offs could become common as droughts become more prevalent and severe.

"We've seen instances of this occurring around the globe in the past decade or so, and the western US has really been a hotspot of widespread tree mortality," Anderegg says. "In some areas, other tree species that are more drought-tolerant could move in, but in some areas we might lose forests altogether if it gets too hot and dry."

But awareness is an important first step. These new findings could be used to develop more accurate climatological models. And according to Anderegg, both short and long-term measures can prevent forest loss and escalating climate change.

"At the largest scale, the sooner and more effectively that we address climate change, the less risks that forests will face. This is absolutely crucial," he says.

"At a smaller scale," he adds, "we can take steps to increase the resilience of forests to changes in climate. These include actions like restoring the natural density of trees – many forests in the western US, for example, have gotten too dense due to decades of suppressing wildfires – encouraging growth and management of trees in areas where they can persist, and minimizing other stresses on forests like overgrazing and wildfires."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.