Disturbances amplify tree community responses to climate change in the temperate–boreal ecotone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Climate change causes major shifts in species distributions, reshuffling community composition and favouring warm‐adapted species (“thermophilization”). The tree community response is likely to be affected by major disturbances, such as fire and harvest. Here, we quantify the relative contributions of climate change and disturbances to temporal shifts in tree composition over the last decades and evaluate whether disturbances accelerate community thermophilization. Location Québec, Canada. Time period 1970–2016. Taxa studied Trees. Methods Using 6,281 forest inventory plots, we quantified temporal changes in species composition between a historical (1970–1980) and a contemporary period (2000–2016) by measuring temporal β‐diversity, gains and losses. The effects of climate and disturbances on temporal β‐diversity were quantified using multiple regressions and variation partitioning. We compared how community indices of species temperature preference (CTI) and shade tolerance (CSI) changed for forests that experienced different levels of disturbance. We quantified the contribution of species gains and losses to change in CTI. Results Temporal β‐diversity was mainly driven by disturbances, with historical harvesting as the most important predictor. Despite the prevailing influence of disturbances, we revealed a significant thermophilization (ΔCTI = +.03 °C/decade) throughout forests in Québec. However, this shift in community composition was weakly explained by climate change and considerably slower than the rate of warming (+.14 °C/decade). Importantly, thermophilization was amplified by moderate disturbances (+.044 °C/decade), almost a threefold increase compared with minor disturbances (+.015 °C/decade). The gains and losses of a few tree species contributed to this community‐level shift. Conclusions Our study provides evidence that disturbances can strongly modify tree community responses to climate change. Moderate disturbances, such as harvesting, might reduce competition and facilitate gains of warm‐adapted species, which then accelerate thermophilization of tree communities under climate change. Although accelerated by disturbances, community thermophilization was driven by the gains and losses of a small number of species, notably gains of maples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".