Borealization of the New England – Acadian Forest: a review of the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The New England – Acadian Forest (NEAF) is an ecoregion spanning 24 million hectares of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. The region is characterized as a transitional forest naturally composed of both boreal and temperate species. The term “borealization” is sometimes used to describe various processes driving the NEAF toward a more boreal character at the expense of its temperate forest species and ecological communities. That the NEAF has undergone significant landscape-scale change in the last four centuries since European settlement is well understood. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the literature on the forest composition and dynamics of this region to investigate whether past, current, and (or) predicted future processes of change are indeed driving the forest toward a more boreal character. We examine studies on the historical forest composition and impacts of past and current land-use practices, as well as indirect anthropogenic changes that are predicted to influence future forest compositions of the NEAF. We review over 100 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and government reports related to this issue. We find ample evidence to suggest that, at the landscape scale, there has been widespread replacement of temperate tree species by boreal species since European settlement. Five primary drivers have facilitated borealization across the NEAF: logging and high-grading, natural reforestation of abandoned farmland, industrial clearcutting, anthropogenic fire, and boreal conifer plantations. Furthermore, the borealization of the NEAF has continued to occur in direct contrast to the predicted impacts of climate change. We encourage future scholarship to tackle these aspects of borealization in the NEAF, including its social, economic, and ecological implications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".