Moving up north: How do translocated seedlings perform in mixed-species plantings at the boreal-temperate interface?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is forcing us to find innovative solutions to help managed forests cope with rapidly shifting environmental conditions. One of these tools is assisted forest migration, the deliberate movement of individuals or genetic material from native sources (i.e. provenance) to locations within or beyond their current ranges. This study aims to assess the climate analogue concept as seed sourcing method in an assisted migration field trial. We evaluated the five-year survival and growth of nine species in mixedwood plantings established in 2018 in Quebec, Canada. The factorial experimental design comprised cutting treatments (1.2 ha patch clearcut vs. 40 % uniform shelterwood), cervid exclusion (excluded vs. non-excluded) and competing vegetation (brushcut vs. control) treatments. Seedlings were grown from seeds of locations associated to three climate analogues: current climate, projected climate for mid-century (2041–2070) and end-of-century (2071–2100). Five-year survival averaged 84 %, ranging from 69 % for Carya ovata to 90 % for Quercus rubra . End-of-century analogue performed less well than others for relocations > 500 km. All species grew larger in patch clearcut than in shelterwood, especially Pinus, Picea and Thuja spp. (3–4× diameters, 2–3× heights). To a lesser extent, brushing slightly improved diameter growth of Carya ovata , Quercus rubra and Thuja occidentalis , but only in patch clearcuts for Prunus serotina , Pinus and Picea spp. Impact of cervid was minimal likely due to snowpack protection. We observed limited effects of climatic mismatch on translocated seedlings, which supports the climate analogue approach as seed sourcing method. Longer-term monitoring will be required to confirm trends. • After five years, seedlings survival was high, with 84 % overall average. • All species grew better in open conditions, including shade-tolerant species. • Brushcutting marginally increased diameter growth, especially in patch clearcuts. • There were limited effects of climatic mismatch on translocated seedlings. • Short-term results generally support the climate analogue approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".