MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimated migration rates under scenarios of global climate change

2002· article· en· W2169190286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsBiomeClimatologyClimate changeForcing (mathematics)BorealEnvironmental scienceTemperate climateAtmospheric sciencesLatitudeClimate modelRadiative forcingGlobal warmingGeneral Circulation ModelPhysical geographyEcosystemEcologyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Greenhouse‐induced warming and resulting shifts in climatic zones may exceed the migration capabilities of some species. We used fourteen combinations of General Circulation Models (GCMs) and Global Vegetation Models (GVMs) to investigate possible migration rates required under CO 2 ‐doubled climatic forcing. Location Global. Methods Migration distances were calculated between grid cells of future biome type x and nearest same‐biome‐type cells in the current climate. In `base‐case' calculations, we assumed that 2 × CO 2 climate forcing would occur in 100 years, we used ten biome types and we measured migration distances as straight‐line distances ignoring water barriers and human development. In sensitivity analyses, we investigated different time periods of 2 × CO 2 climate forcing, more narrowly defined biomes and barriers because of water bodies and human development. Results In the base‐case calculations, average migration rates varied significantly according to the GVM used (BIOME3 vs. MAPSS), the age of the GCM (older‐ vs. newer‐generation GCMs), and whether or not GCMs included sulphate cooling or CO 2 fertilization effects. However, high migration rates (≥ 1000 m year −1 ) were relatively common in all models, consisting on average of 17% grid cells for BIOME3 and 21% for MAPSS. Migration rates were much higher in boreal and temperate biomes than in tropical biomes. Doubling of the time period of 2 × CO 2 forcing reduced these areas of high migration rates to c . 12% of grid cells for both BIOME3 and MAPSS. However, to obtain migration rates in the Boreal biome that were similar in magnitude to those observed for spruce when it followed the retreating North American Glacier, a radical increase in the period of warming was required, from 100 to >1000 years. A reduction in biome area by an order of magnitude increased migration rates by one to three orders of magnitude, depending on the GVM. Large water bodies and human development had regionally important effects in increasing migration rates. Main conclusions In conclusion, evidence from coupled GCMs and GVMs suggests that global warming may require migration rates much faster than those observed during post‐glacial times and hence has the potential to reduce biodiversity by selecting for highly mobile and opportunistic species. Several poorly understood factors that are expected to influence the magnitude of any such reduction are discussed, including intrinsic migrational capabilities, barriers to migration, the role of outlier populations in increasing migration rates, the role of climate in setting range limits and variation in species range sizes.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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