Multi‐model projections of tree species performance in Quebec, Canada under future climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many modelling approaches have been developed to project climate change impacts on forests. By analysing 'comparable' yet distinct variables (e.g. productivity, growth, dominance, biomass, etc.) through different structures, parameterizations and assumptions, models can yield different outcomes to rather similar initial questions. This variability can lead to some confusion for forest managers when developing strategies to adapt forest management to climate change. In this study, we standardized results from seven different models (Habitat suitability, trGam, StandLEAP, Quebec Landscape Dynamics, PICUS, LANDIS-II and LPJ-LMfire) to provide a simple and comprehensive assessment of the uncertainty and consensus in future performance (decline, status quo, improvement) for six tree species in Quebec under two radiative forcing scenarios (RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5). Despite a large diversity of model types, we found a high level of agreement (73.1%) in projected species' performance across species, regions, scenarios and time periods. Low agreements in model outcomes resulted from small dissensions among models. Model agreement was much higher for cold-tolerant species (up to 99.9%), especially in southernmost forest regions and under RCP 8.5, indicating that these species are especially sensitive to increased climate forcing in the southern part of their distribution range. Lower agreement was found for thermophilous species (sugar maple, yellow birch) in boreal regions under RCP 8.5 mostly as a result of the way the different models are handling natural disturbances (e.g. wildfires) and lags in the response of populations (forest inertia or migration capability) to climate change. Agreement was slightly higher under high anthropogenic climate forcing, suggesting that important thresholds in species-specific performance might be crossed if radiative forcing reach values as high as those projected under RCP 8.5. We expect that strong agreement among models despite their different assumptions, predictors and structure should inspire the development of forest management strategies to be better adapted to 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".