Mixed Regional Shifts in Conifer Productivity under 21st-Century Climate Projections in Canada’s Northeastern Boreal Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of forest growth and yield (G&Y) are a key component in long-term strategic forest management plans. Models leveraging the industry-standard “empirical” approach to G&Y are frequently underpinned by an assumption of historical consistency in climatic growing conditions. This assumption is problematic as forest managers look to obtain reliable growth predictions under the changing climate of the 21st century. Consequently, there is a pressing need for G&Y modelling approaches that can be more robustly applied under the influence of climate change. In this study we utilized an established forest gap model (JABOWA-3) to simulate G&Y between 2020 and 2100 under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5 in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). Simulations were completed using the province’s permanent sample plot data and surface-fitted climatic datasets. Through model validation, we found simulated basal area (BA) aligned with observed BA for the major conifer species components of NL’s forests, including black spruce [Picea mariana (Mill.) Britton et al.] and balsam fir [Abies balsamea (L.) Mill]. Model validation was not as robust for the less abundant species components of NL (e.g., Acer rubrum L. 1753, Populus tremuloides Michx., and Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). Our simulations generally indicate that projected climatic changes may modestly increase black spruce and balsam fir productivity in the more northerly growing environments within NL. In contrast, we found productivity of these same species to only be maintained, and in some instances even decline, toward NL’s southerly extents. These generalizations are moderated by species, RCP, and geographic parameters. Growth modifiers were also prepared to render empirical G&Y projections more robust for use under periods of climate change.
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 | 0.000 | 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".