MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157921315 · doi:10.1139/x07-166

Potential change in lodgepole pine site index and distribution under climatic change in Alberta

2008· article· en· W2157921315 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Robert A. Monserud, Yuqing Yang, Shongming Huang, N. M. Tchebakova

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
FundersPacific Northwest Research StationForest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta
KeywordsHadCM3Pinus contortaClimate changeEnvironmental scienceSite indexGlobal warmingRange (aeronautics)ProductivityDrynessPrecipitationDisturbance (geology)Climate change scenarioForestryPhysical geographyEcologyGeographyGeneral Circulation ModelMeteorologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimated the impact of global climate change on lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) site productivity in Alberta based on the Alberta Climate Model and the A2 SRES climate change scenario projections from three global circulation models (CGCM2, HADCM3, and ECHAM4). Considerable warming is apparent in all three models. On average, the increases in mean GDD 5 (growing degree-days >5 °C) are 18%, 38%, and 65% by the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s, respectively. Change in precipitation is essentially nil. This results in proportional increases in dryness index. We used the dryness index to predict the potential future range and GDD 5 to predict its potential productivity. Generally, lodgepole pine site index is predicted to increase steadily by 3 m for each 30-year period. Offsetting this increase is a large reduction in suitable area as drying increases. At first, the warming increases the potential range up to 67% by the 2020s but then shrinks from 34% to 58% of its current area by 2080. Such major changes will need to be considered when setting long-term forest management plans. The increased risk of both wildfire and insect outbreaks further compounds this planning problem, especially because these disturbance events can interact and further increase risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207