Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 1. Vegetation changes north of 55°N between the last glacial maximum, mid‐Holocene, and present
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A unified scheme to assign pollen samples to vegetation types was used to reconstruct vegetation patterns north of 55°N at the last glacial maximum (LGM) and mid‐Holocene (6000 years B.P.). The pollen data set assembled for this purpose represents a comprehensive compilation based on the work of many projects and research groups. Five tundra types (cushion forb tundra, graminoid and forb tundra, prostrate dwarf‐shrub tundra, erect dwarf‐shrub tundra, and low‐ and high‐shrub tundra) were distinguished and mapped on the basis of modern pollen surface samples. The tundra‐forest boundary and the distributions of boreal and temperate forest types today were realistically reconstructed. During the mid‐Holocene the tundra‐forest boundary was north of its present position in some regions, but the pattern of this shift was strongly asymmetrical around the pole, with the largest northward shift in central Siberia (∼200 km), little change in Beringia, and a southward shift in Keewatin and Labrador (∼200 km). Low‐ and high‐shrub tundra extended farther north than today. At the LGM, forests were absent from high latitudes. Graminoid and forb tundra abutted on temperate steppe in northwestern Eurasia while prostrate dwarf‐shrub, erect dwarf‐shrub, and graminoid and forb tundra formed a mosaic in Beringia. Graminoid and forb tundra is restricted today and does not form a large continuous biome, but the pollen data show that it was far more extensive at the LGM, while low‐ and high‐shrub tundra were greatly reduced, illustrating the potential for climate change to dramatically alter the relative areas occupied by different vegetation types.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".