Finding common ground: Toward comparable indicators of adaptive capacity of tree species to a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adaptive capacity, one of the three determinants of vulnerability to climate change, is defined as the capacity of species to persist in their current location by coping with novel environmental conditions through acclimation and/or evolution. Although studies have identified indicators of adaptive capacity, few have assessed this capacity in a quantitative way that is comparable across tree species. Yet, such multispecies assessments are needed by forest management and conservation programs to refine vulnerability assessments and to guide the choice of adaptation measures. In this paper, we propose a framework to quantitatively evaluate five key components of tree adaptive capacity to climate change: individual adaptation through phenotypic plasticity, population phenotypic diversity as influenced by genetic diversity, genetic exchange within populations, genetic exchange between populations, and genetic exchange between species. For each component, we define the main mechanisms that underlie adaptive capacity and present associated metrics that can be used as indices. To illustrate the use of this framework, we evaluate the relative adaptive capacity of 26 northeastern North American tree species using values reported in the literature. Our results show adaptive capacity to be highly variable among species and between components of adaptive capacity, such that no one species ranks consistently across all components. On average, the conifer Picea glauca and the broadleaves Acer rubrum and A. saccharinum show the greatest adaptive capacity among the 26 species we documented, whereas the conifers Picea rubens and Thuja occidentalis , and the broadleaf Ostrya virginiana possess the lowest. We discuss limitations that arise when comparing adaptive capacity among species, including poor data availability and comparability issues in metrics derived from different methods or studies. The breadth of data required for such an assessment exemplifies the multidisciplinary nature of adaptive capacity and the necessity of continued cross‐collaboration to better anticipate the impacts of a changing climate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".