Dominant forest tree species are potentially vulnerable to climate change over large portions of their range even at high latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projecting suitable conditions for a species as a function of future climate provides a reasonable, although admittedly imperfect, spatially explicit estimate of species vulnerability associated with climate change. Projections emphasizing range shifts at continental scale, however, can mask contrasting patterns at local or regional scale where management and policy decisions are made. Moreover, models usually show potential for areas to become climatically unsuitable, remain suitable, or become suitable for a particular species with climate change, but each of these outcomes raises markedly different ecological and management issues. Managing forest decline at sites where climatic stress is projected to increase is likely to be the most immediate challenge resulting from climate change. Here we assess habitat suitability with climate change for five dominant tree species of eastern North American forests, focusing on areas of greatest vulnerability (loss of suitability in the baseline range) in Quebec (Canada) rather than opportunities (increase in suitability). Results show that these species are at risk of maladaptation over a remarkably large proportion of their baseline range. Depending on species, 5-21% of currently climatically suitable habitats are projected to be at risk of becoming unsuitable. This suggests that species that have traditionally defined whole regional vegetation assemblages could become less adapted to these regions, with significant impact on ecosystems and forest economy. In spite of their well-recognised limitations and the uncertainty that remains, regionally-explicit risk assessment approaches remain one of the best options to convey that message and the need for climate policies and forest management adaptation strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".