Climate‐driven shifts in leaf senescence are greater for boreal species than temperate species in the Acadian Forest region in contrast to leaf emergence shifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Acadian Forest Region is a temperate‐boreal transitional zone in eastern North America which provides a unique opportunity for understanding the potential effects of climate change on both forest types. Leaf phenology, the timing of leaf life cycle changes, is an important indicator of the biological effects of climate change, which can be observed with stationary timelapse cameras known as phenocams. Using four growing seasons of observations for the species Acer rubrum (red maple), Betula papyrifera (paper/white birch) and Abies balsamea (balsam fir) from the Acadian Phenocam Network as well as multiple growing season observations from the North American PhenoCam Network we parameterized eight leaf emergence and six leaf senescence models for each species which span a range in process and driver representation. With climate models from the Fifth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) we simulated future leaf emergence, senescence and season length (senescence minus emergence) for these species at sites within the Acadian Phenocam Network. Model performances were similar across models and leaf emergence model RMSE ranged from about 1 to 2 weeks across species and models, while leaf senescence model RMSE ranged from about 2 to 4 weeks. The simulations suggest that by the late 21st century, leaf senescence may become continuously delayed for boreal species like Betula papyrifera and Abies balsamea, though remain relatively stable for temperate species like Acer rubrum. In contrast, the projected advancement in leaf emergence was similar across boreal and temperate species. This has important implications for carbon uptake, nutrient resorption, ecology and ecotourism for the Acadian Forest Region. More work is needed to improve predictions of leaf phenology for the Acadian Forest Region, especially with respect to senescence. Phenocams have the potential to rapidly advance process‐based model development and predictions of leaf phenology in the context 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".