Timber harvesting was the most important factor driving changes in vegetation composition, as compared to climate and fire regime shifts, in the mixedwood temperate forests of Temiscamingue since AD 1830
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The vegetation composition of northeastern North American forests has significantly changed since pre-settlement times, with a marked reduction in conifer-dominated stands, taxonomic and functional diversity. These changes have been attributed to fire regime shifts, logging, and climate change. Methods: In this study, we disentangled the individual effects of these drivers on the forest composition in southwestern Quebec from 1830 to 2000 by conducting retrospective modelling using the LANDIS-II forest landscape model. The model was run based on pre-settlement forest composition and fire history reconstructions, historical timber harvest records, and climate reanalysis data. We compared counterfactual scenarios excluding individual factors to a baseline historical scenario. Results and Conclusions: Our results indicated that timber harvesting had the greatest impact on forest dynamics over the past centuries. In the absence of timber harvesting, pre-settlement species abundances were largely maintained, preserving key functional traits like fire and shade tolerance that contribute to ecosystem resilience. Increased fire activity during the settlement period contributed to the increase of early-successional aspen (Populus tremuloides), but timber harvesting played the dominant role. Fire exclusion had no influence on vegetation composition, suggesting mesophication unfolds over longer timescales than those captured in this study. Climate change, characterized by modest increases in temperature and precipitation, had a minor effect on vegetation shifts, as increased precipitation might have mitigated the adverse effects of rising temperatures. However, future climate change is projected to become a more significant driver of forest composition. These findings underscore the importance of forest restoration and continued research on past forest dynamics to better understand current and future changes. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-025-02043-x.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".