Prediction of Potential Habitat Distributions and Climate Change Impacts on Six Carex L. Species of Conservation Concern in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is increasingly altering ecosystems around the world and threatening biodiversity, especially species with narrow distribution ranges and a dependency on dedicated conservation practices. In Saskatchewan, Canada, the ecological significance of the genus sedge (Carex L.) from the Cyperaceae family is well recognized, yet spatially explicit forecasts of its habitats under future climate scenarios remain absent, creating a major obstacle to forward-looking conservation strategies. This study assesses the current and future habitat suitability of six sedges, including three nationally at-risk species (C. assiniboinensis, C. saximontana, C. tetanica) and three provincially rare species (C. glacialis, C. granularis, C. supina subsp. spaniocarpa). We applied the MaxEnt algorithm to model the distributions of those Carex species of conservation concern using 20 environmental predictors (19 bioclimatic variables and elevation) under baseline climate (1970–2000) and projected future scenarios for the 2030s and 2050s using SSP245 and SSP585 emission pathways. We optimized and validated models with the ENMeval package to enhance predictive reliability. Model accuracy was high (AUC = 0.88–0.99) and the results revealed a diversity of species responses: C. assiniboinensis and C. tetanica are projected to expand their suitable habitat, while C. saximontana is expected to lose high suitability areas. The distributions of C. glacialis and C. supina subsp. spaniocarpa remain restricted and relatively stable across scenarios. C. granularis is projected to have dynamic range shifts, particularly under the high-emission SSP585 scenario. Temperature-related variables were consistently the most influential predictors. These results provide critical insights into the potential impacts of climate change on Carex species of conservation concern in Canada and offer valuable guidance for prioritizing adaptive conservation planning and proactive habitat management. The diversity of species responses emphasizes the necessity of tailored conservation approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".