Geographic variation in projected US forest aboveground carbon responses to climate change and atmospheric deposition.

Forest composition and ecosystem services are sensitive to anthropogenic pressures like climate change and atmospheric deposition of nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S). Here we extend recent forest projections for the current cohort of trees in the contiguous US, characterizing potential changes in aboveground tree carbon at the county level in response to varying mean annual temperature, precipitation, and N and S deposition. We found that relative to a scenario with N and S deposition reduction and no climate change, greater climate change led generally to decreasing aboveground carbon (mean -7.5% under RCP4.5, -16% under RCP8.5). Keeping climate constant, reduced N deposition tended to lessen aboveground carbon (mean -7%), whereas reduced S deposition tended to increase aboveground carbon (+3%) by 2100. Through mid-century (2050), deposition was more important for predicting carbon responses except under the extreme climate scenarios (RCP); but, by 2100, climate drivers generally outweighed deposition. While more than 70% of counties showed reductions in aboveground carbon relative to the reference scenario, these were not evenly distributed across the US. Counties in the Northwest and Northern Great Plains, and the northern parts of New England and the Midwest, primarily showed positive responses, while counties in the Southeast showed negative responses. Counties with greater initial biomass showed less negative responses to climate change while those which exhibited the greatest change in composition (>15%) had a 95% chance of losing carbon relative to a no-climate change scenario. This analysis highlights that declines in forest growth and survival due to increases in mean temperature and reductions in atmospheric N deposition are likely to outweigh positive impacts of reduced S deposition and potential increases in precipitation. These effects vary at the regional and county level, however, so forest managers must consider local rather than national dynamics to maximize forest carbon sinks in the future.