Latitudinal decline in stand biomass and productivity at the elevational treeline in the Ural mountains despite a common thermal growth limit

• Published in: Journal of Biogeography
• Main Authors: Hagedorn, Frank, Dawes, Melissa A., Bubnov, Maxim O., Devi, Nadezhda M., Grigoriev, Andrey A., Mazepa, Valeriy S., Nagimov, Zufar Y., Shiyatov, Stepan G., Moiseev, Pavel A.
• Other Authors: ERA.Net RUS, Russian Scientific Foundation, Russian Ministry of Science and High Education
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2020
• Subjects: permafrost; ural mountains
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13867; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fjbi.13867; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbi.13867; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1111/jbi.13867

Abstract Aim To quantify tree biomass and stand productivity of treeline ecotones and identify driving factors. Location treeline ecotones of seven regions from the South to Polar Urals, spanning a latitudinal gradient of 1,500 km. Taxa Picea obovata , Betula pubescens , Larix sibirica. Methods Stand biomass and productivity were estimated across 18 elevational transects from the tree species line to the closed forest line based on allometric measurements of 326 trees (including roots for 53 trees), stand structure assessments and demographic patterns of 20,600 trees. Stand growth data were linked to (a) temperatures monitored in situ for five years in the South and Polar Urals, (b) climate variables extrapolated from nearby climate stations and (c) measures of nutrient availability in soils and tree foliage. Results treeline position along the latitudinal gradient occurred at a similar mean growing season temperature. Despite the common cold limitation of tree distribution along the Ural mountain range, stand biomass and productivity within the treeline ecotone decreased by a factor of three and five from the South to the Polar Urals, mainly due to a declining stand density. Among climatic variables, growing season length decreased by 20% and winter temperatures declined by 4°C towards the Polar Urals, whereas growing degree days > 5°C remained similar, averaging 554 ± 9°C. Soil development was poorer in the Polar than in the South Urals, and plant‐available N and P in the soil were 20 and 30 times lower, respectively, probably due to lower winter temperatures. Main conclusions Our results suggest that once the thermal limitation for tree growth is relieved, soil fertility—restricted by permafrost and low soil temperatures during winter—plays a key and yet underexplored role for stand productivity in treeline ecotones. The observed latitudinal decline in stand productivity is important for above‐ and belowground diversity and functioning.