Conservation of future boreal forest bird communities considering lags in vegetation response to climate change: a modified refugia approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Species and ecosystems may be unable to keep pace with rapid climate change projected for the 21st century. We evaluated an underexplored dimension of the mismatch between climate and biota: limitations to forest growth and succession affecting habitat suitability. Our objective was to inform continental‐scale conservation for boreal songbirds under disequilibria between climate, vegetation and fauna. Location Boreal and southern arctic ecoregions of North America. Methods We used forest inventory and avian survey data to classify 53 species by seral‐stage affinity and applied these to generate alternative projections of changes in species' core habitat distributions based on different vegetation lag‐time assumptions. We used our seral stage‐modified refugia approach and the Zonation algorithm to identify multispecies boreal conservation priorities over the 21st century. We evaluated the sensitivity of land rankings to seral‐stage affinity and species' weights and assessed the conservation value of the existing protected areas network compared to Zonation results. Results End‐of‐century projected changes in songbird distribution were reduced by up to 169% when vegetation lags were considered. Zonation land rankings based on unconstrained climate projections were concentrated at high latitudes, whereas those based on strict and modified refugia scenarios were concentrated in coastal and high‐elevation areas, as well as biome transition zones, which were fairly consistent over time and species weights. The existing protected areas network covering 14% of the study area was estimated to conserve 12–14% of baseline avian biodiversity across time periods and scenarios, compared to 16–25% for top‐ranked Zonation areas. Main conclusions For some boreal songbirds, limits to forest growth and succession may result in dramatic reductions in suitable habitat over the next century. Our seral stage‐adjusted approach provides conservative and efficient boreal conservation priorities anchored around climatic macrorefugia that are robust to century‐long climate change and complement the current protected areas network.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".