Climate Change Informed Species Selection (CCISS – pronounced ‘kiss’) is a Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification-based analysis framework built to anticipate the change climate implications to tree species environmental suitability at a site specific level. The CCISS tool is a web-based application that makes this analysis accessible to practitioners to help guide climate change adaptation in reforestation decisions.
Understanding climate- and site-level species suitability is one of the foundational pieces of information that practitioners require for the creation of silvicultural prescriptions that will lead to successful reforestation over a rotation period. Climate change will affect this goal by progressively altering environmental conditions and therefore the suitability of tree species established on a site over time.
To address this challenge, the CCISS tool projects changes to species environmental suitability at a site series level for any user selected location in the province and estimates the future suitability of a tree species to this changing climate. To account for future climate uncertainty the tool looks at a wide range of global climate change models and emissions scenarios to capture the range of plausible climate futures for any location in BC in 20-year periods out to 2100.
To assist users, the tool compares the current species selection guidance in the Chief Foresters Reference Guide with the future forecast from the CCISS analysis. Reports from the tool highlight where currently acceptable species are stable/improving or declining/unsuitable and where new species have become suitable and could be considered as candidates for assisted migration.
The CCISS tool is a web-based R-shiny application organized into six tabs.
Option 1. Click on BGC map to add one or more individual locations. Use this option if you have specific sites you are interested in or are exploring CCISS results. Where multiple sites are selected, the user can choose to generate a report where points are averaged within a BGC (default) or for each individual site.
Option 2. Click on map to choose an entire BGC or a BGC within a single Forest District. The CCISS tool will use a set of pre-selected random points for the units chosen. This option is to be used where general trends are desired by area. The BGC + District option is probably most appropriate for stocking standard revisions.
Option 3. User selects a formatted CSV file to upload user-specified and named points. The batch file must be in comma-separated (.csv) text format specifying a short sitename, latitude, longitude, and (optionally) site series (Formatted like ICHmc2/01a with no spaces) for each site. Batch files of up to 4000 points are supported and run at about 20 points/second.
Option 1 and 2 default to BGC averaged reports while option 3 defaults to individual reports.
If additional points are added or other changes to parameters the “Generate Results’ button will change to ’Refresh Results” to regenerate the output.
The CCISS tool makes calculations that differentially weight climate models, scenarios, and time periods in results. We have assigned recommended weightings for general use of the tool. However, for some purposes users may wish to adjust the weights given to these parameters based on their specific objectives.
The Feasibility report provides an assessment of establishment feasibility, representing the likelihood of success in establishing the species to free growing if planted in the present climate. This value is a weighted average of the environmental feasibility in the 1961-2020, 2001-2020, and 2021-2040 periods. The default weightings are even across these periods to reflect three perspectives on feasibility. First, the 1961-1990 period reflects the proven viability of the species in the ecosystem. Second, the 2001-2020 period reflects the actual climate experienced in the location of interest. Third, the 2021=2040 period is the expected climate during the establishment of the species. Users may want to adjust the establishment feasibility weights based on whether they want a more historically-oriented or future-oriented assessment. Note that the feasibility in each of these periods is visible in the detailed feasibility report.
The Feasibility Report provides an assessment of maturation feasibility: the feasibility of the species through the entire future period to rotation (2021 to 2100). The default setting equally weight the four 20-year future time periods.
There are 13 global climate models available in the CCISS tool. However, the CCISS tool defaults to the 8-model ensemble of global climate models recommended by Mahony et al. (2022) and assigns each of these models equal weighting. The five models were excluded because their warming rates aren’t supported by observational evidence (CanESM5, UKESM1, INM-CM5; explained here), because they only have a single run for each scenario (BCC-CSM2, INM-CM5), or because they exhibit unrealistic localized warming in BC (IPSL-CM6A).
Global climate model projections follow scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). The CCISS tool provides the option of giving different weights to the four major SSP scenarios: SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5. Collectively, SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP3-7.0 provide a reasonable representation of optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic outlooks on global emissions policies and socioeconomic development. The CCISS tool defaults to equal weighting of these three scenarios to represent scenario uncertainty in climate change projections. We have set SSP5-8.5 weighting to 0 in the default scenarios because it is extremely unlikely based on current trends in energy economics and policy (Hausfather and Peters 2020).
This is the main report of the CCISS tool. The Summary mode of this report provides a comparison of the Chief Forester’s Reference Guide for Stocking Standards (CFRG) and the CCISS feasibility assessment. The Detailed mode shows the distribution of feasibility ratings for the global climate model ensemble in each time period.
The concept and definitions of CCISS feasibility ratings are discussed in more detail here
In left pane select the BGC subzone/variant and then the site series of interest. The edatopic space of the selected site series is displayed in the graphic below for reference. By default the report will show all species that are predicted to be feasible in at least one model and time period. Choose the “Feasible Only” option to limit the list to species that meet the threshold for classification as feasible across the global climate model ensemble in any of the time periods.
This report shows modelled feasibility ratios for each species in the selected site series for each time period. The colour legend for feasibility ratings is on the left hand pane. The mapped biogeoclimatic unit represents the historical equilibrium climate approximated by the climatic conditions of the 1961-1990 period. The recent time period (2001-2020) has two bars: one for the observed climate (measured by weather stations), and one for the climates simulated by the ensemble of global climate models. These two bars aren’t necessarily expected to agree: The modelled climates sample a large range of possible recent conditions, of which the observed recent climate is only one.
The report then summarizes the baseline suitability ratings and forecasted feasibility ratings for each species in the following order:
The CFRG suitability rating: Suitability ratings taken directly from the Chief foresters reference guide
The CFRG P/A value: Preferred/Acceptable ratings taken directly from the Chief foresters reference guide
The Historical Environmental Suitability: Expert baseline environmental suitability rating for site series.
CCISS Establishment Feasibility: The feasibility rating based on the baseline (1961-1990), recent observed (2001-2020), and 2021-2040 future projected feasibilities. This indicates the likely level of constraints for successful establishment of the species in the present climate. Default model settings equally weight time periods.
CCISS Maturation Feasibility: The mean feasibility rating across the 20-year normal periods (2021-2100). This indicates the inferred feasibility of successfully growing an established to maturity (80 years). Default model settings equally weight time periods
P/A: Assessed preferred/acceptable rating based on establishment and maturation feasibility.
Trend: the proportion of the GCM simulations indicating improving/stable feasibility (numerator) vs. declining feasibility or remaining unfeasible.
The weights used to calculate Establishment Feasibility and Maturation Feasibility can be modified using the “Adjust Parameters” dialog box in the “Select Sites” tab.
This report compares CCISS maturation feasibility with the Chief Forester’s Reference Guide for Stocking Standards. Species codes are coloured according to trends in their future feasibility using the legend at the bottom of the selection pane: improving (green), decreasing (red). Species added to the CCISS stocking standard are coloured purple, and species dropped from the CCISS stocking standard are strike-through.
This section summarizes the biogeoclimatic projections that underlie the species feasibility forecasts. Biogeoclimatic subzone/variants (a.k.a. BGC units) are the climate component of the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC). Each user-selected location has a mapped BGC unit representing its historical climate. Biogeoclimatic projections identify a BGC unit whose historical climate is the best match (best analog) for the future climate at a user-selected location. In other words, changes in climatic conditions (temperature, precipitation, etc) are translated into a change in the BGC unit.
The chart mode displays a stacked bar chart showing the ratio of future BGC analogs by time period predicted across range of global climate model-scenario climate projections. Hovering over a stacked bar will display these proportions numerically.
The recent time period (2001-2020) has two bars: one for the observed climate (measured by weather stations), and one for the modelled climates (simulated by global climate models). These two aren’t expected to agree: The modelled climates sample a large range of possible recent conditions, of which the observed recent climate is only one.
The default mode of this plot simply shows the BGC analog labels. Specifying a site series of interest will display the site series in the BGC analog that overlap with the edatopic position of the historic site series, along with the proportion of the edatopic overlap. The “minimum site series overlap” slider allows the user to include or exclude site series with small edatopic overlaps.
Select the site or area of interest from the drop down menu and then select a future time period. The map will show the historical BGC unit in yellow and the projected BGC analogs in grey. Darker greys indicate a higher proportion of global climate model projections matched that BGC analog.
This section contains information that may be useful for interpreting CCISS results and making management decisions.
This module summarizes the silvics of each species with historic or future feasibility in the selected BGC unit and site series. This information is drawn from Klinka et al. (1999). This information can be explored further at this link.
Klinka, K., J. Worrall, L. Skoda, and P. Varga. 2000. The Distribution and Synopsis of Ecological and Silvical Characteristics of Tree Species of British Columbia’s Forests. Canadian Cartographics Ltd., Coquitlam, B.C.
This module provides provincial-scale maps for user-selected species and site types. Three example site series representing different edatopic conditions are currently available: the B2 edatope (nutrient-poor, moisture-subxeric sites), C4 edatope (nutrient-medium, moisture-mesic sites), and D6 edatope (nutrient-rich, moisture-hygric sites).
The figure provides three maps: (left) The historical environmental feasibility rating for each species; (center) the proportion of the GCM ensemble projecting the retreat (historically feasible but projected unfeasible) or expansion (historically unfeasible but projected to be feasible) of the species in the 2041–2060 period; and (right) the mean change in feasibility across the GCM ensemble by the 2041–2060 period.
The report is designed for documentation and off-line use of a CCISS tool report session, e.g. as an appendix to a site plan. We recommend including only the site series of interest to the user. Choose the “Feasible Only” option to limit list to species that meet the threshold for inclusion as feasible in any of the time periods.
Feasibility data can be exported for conducting further analysis such as calculating summary statistics for your area of interest. Feasibility data exported from the CCISS tool is in “long form” with each row showing projected feasibility by site of interest, site series, and tree species. Data is exported as a .CSV file; a PDF metadata report is included in the export folder.
The Establishment to Free Growing Guidebooks and Chief Forester’s Reference Guide for Stocking Standards (CFRG) rank ecologically acceptable species for each site series. Three criteria are used to determine the most suitable species choices for sawlog production (the assumed management goal) based on an assessment of:
The rankings applied always have at least one “primary” species for each site series indicating the best species choice to meet the timber objective.
In contrast, the CCISS tool assesses the environmental suitability rating to species, which focuses on how well the species is suited to the climatic and site conditions of a site series regardless of management objective. Each tree species has adapted to a specific range of environmental conditions, and its growth and behaviour depend on the ecosystem in which it grows. In an unfavourable environment, that species growth potential will not be realized, and its susceptibility to damaging agents will increase. Unlike the ratings applied in the CFRG, site series with generally challenging growing conditions may have no tree species assigned to the highest suitability rating.
Insect and disease risks need to be considered in reforestation, particularly in the context of climate change. These factors are currently being assessed by Forest Health researchers.
Feasibility (environmental suitability) ratings are defined as follows:
E1 – High environmental suitability: Typically, no environmental limiting conditions for establishment and growth across the full range of site series conditions.
E2 – Moderate environmental suitability: Once tree species are successfully established, they will generally perform well. However;
species may be more susceptible to occasional but expected climatic extremes leading to mortality, damage, or reduced growth (e.g. drought periods);
some site types of the site series conditions may have higher constraints for the species leading to poor regeneration success or subsequent growth (e.g. frost prone locations or overly wet sites in Sx – Horsetail site series),
may express slow growth rates across all conditions (e.g. woodland subzones or Xeric sites with ~SI50 < 8m)
E3 – Low environmental suitability: Establishment and growth may be limited to specific site conditions of the site series but may perform well where successfully established.
expected climatic extremes have a high probability of causing reduced growth, damage or mortality in some years (e.g. drought periods);
a limited set of site series conditions are considered feasible for the species though it may perform well under these constraints (e.g. only feasible on warm aspect, lower elevations of the ESSF);
species may express very low growth rates across all conditions (e.g. parkland subzones or rock outcrops with SI50 < 5m)
Non-local Feasibility: Off-site trials indicate that a non-local species was feasible in the pre-climate change period but that migration lag or some other barrier restricted establishment.
Trial: Species is not recognized as historically feasible for a site series but is projected to become feasible in the near future. Establishment of small operational trials recommended to provide information on possible inclusion of species in feasible species list.
Unsuitable: Unlisted species are considered to be unsuitable to the site series in current and future periods. Future projections may indicate species are becoming unsuitable. This indicates that the climatic regime may impose serious growth constraints on the established species but may not necessarily indicate mortality.
Feasibility for different time periods, given the progression of climate change, are given the following terms in the CCISS tool:
Historic Feasibility: The baseline environmental suitability rating based primarily on the CFRG and the historic period pre 1991.
Establishment Feasibility: The feasibility rating based on the mean historic, current, and 2021-2040 future projected feasibilities. This indicates the likely level of constraints for successful establishment of the species now.
Maturation Feasibility: The mean feasibility rating based on the 4 future modelled 2021-2040 future projected feasibilities. This indicates the likely level of constraints for successful establishment of the species now.