MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417460231 · doi:10.1111/csp2.70223

Implementing climate‐change refugia conservation

2025· article· en· W4417460231 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeBiodiversityAdaptation (eye)Diversity (politics)Face (sociological concept)Conceptual frameworkClimate change adaptationSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past decade has seen major advances in the study of climate-change refugia (Morelli et al., In Press), defined as areas on the landscape relatively buffered from contemporary climate change over time that enable the persistence of valued physical, ecological, and socio-cultural resources (Morelli et al., 2016). From its inception in paleoecology to its application in modern climate adaptation (Keppel et al., 2015), the refugia concept has grown enormously and expanded its focus beyond mapping to conservation implementation, with several recent syntheses providing comprehensive overviews (e.g., Keppel et al., 2024; Morelli et al., 2020). Today, as climate adaptation increasingly emphasizes on-the-ground action, so too is refugia science evolving from conceptual exploration to practical application. In this special issue, we highlight recent advances in climate-change refugia conservation and management across a diverse set of ecosystems while conveying the current state of refugia science. This collection of papers showcases the latest contributions of work along the climate-change refugia science to implementation spectrum from a diversity of perspectives, methods, and geographies. We show that refugia science is being applied to guide on-the-ground management decisions and the investment of resources, even as it continues to evolve and expand to incorporate new methodologies and perspectives. The individual studies seek to address questions about where, how, and for how long refugia may support conservation of biodiversity in the face of climate change, and they provide examples of how early adopters are incorporating refugia into climate adaptation, conservation, and landscape planning in a changing world. They illustrate how practitioners are increasingly integrating refugia science into their work to guide on-the-ground management decisions and the investment of resources worldwide. As refugia science and conservation have matured, the nuance and complexity of the methods have increased. Advances in spatiotemporal data availability have led to the development of high-resolution, large-extent products based on a variety of remotely sensed inputs and predictive models (Krawchuk et al., In Press; Stralberg et al., In Press). These advances have been leveraged to record abiotic factors as well as to estimate species occurrence and abundance (Cavalieri et al., In Press; Dykema et al., In Press). Nevertheless, an often overlooked key step to refugia conservation is validating refugia hypotheses (Barrows et al. 2020). Such validation may require fine-scale, in-depth study to understand the mechanism by which coarse-scale relationships are built (Bentze et al., 2025). Nadeau et al. (In Press) present a case study for this process, illustrating how independent field data collection and experiments can verify refugia hypotheses. Refugia characteristics are also being identified for a variety of ecosystems and landscape features whose climate buffering characteristics are more subtle and often hydrologically mediated (Phillips et al., 2025; Słowińska et al., In Press; Zuckerberg et al., In Press). The identification of refugia from wildfire and other disturbance events has become an important component of land management and conservation activities, leading to more nuanced tools, frameworks, and conservation targets (Hohwieler et al., In Press; Krawchuk et al., In Press). As refugia science develops, so does the recognition of a need to connect these advances to existing conservation and planning initiatives and to foster relationships of mutual respect between partners (Kehm et al., In Press). Clear frameworks are needed to balance competing conservation and land-use goals in the presence of climate change. This also involves the enumeration of management actions to be taken within and outside of these buffered areas (Jennings et al., In Press; Stralberg et al., In Press). Increasingly, there are calls for intensive management and even creation of refugia in highly suitable areas (Zuckerberg et al., In Press). Recent refugia studies have incorporated extensive coproduction efforts and decision science (Mozelewski et al., In Press) for efficient conservation and restoration investments given limited resources. Decision support tools have been developed to help land managers assess refugia potential across landscapes and regions (Dreiss & Rice, 2025; John et al., In Press). The incorporation of refugia concepts into planning efforts has also involved increasing recognition of local and Indigenous knowledge and values. Coproduction with Indigenous communities enables local values to be central to the decision process, which can lead to more credible and enduring plans (Kehm et al., In Press). Focus on climate-change refugia identification is notably shifting to their protection and management (Caven & Pearse 2025; Mozelewski et al., In Press); as mapping and validation of refugia have become more sophisticated and widespread, implementation has become the next challenge. However, implementation requires expertise and attention in a multitude of areas and is challenged by many factors, including data limitations and the complexities of operationalizing refugia conservation across scales (Morelli et al., In Press). As refugia science matures, additional nuanced ways allow integration of refugia into conservation planning and prioritization. Although it is no panacea to the global shocks that ecological and cultural resources are experiencing, refugia management is finding its place among the toolkit of adaptation and conservation actions. Moreover, refugia science will be most impactful if embedded in existing paradigms like Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD; Lynch et al., 2021) and if considered with other priorities like connectivity. The studies highlighted throughout this special issue demonstrate practical applications of refugia science, showcasing its potential to leverage coproduction in a way that can greatly improve the efficiency and efficacy of conservation action in a changing climate. To successfully advance climate adaptation, the principles of collaboration and innovation (Enquist et al., 2017), alongside rigor and validation, will need to be foundational to refugia conservation. In coming years, harnessing the broad base of physical, ecological, and statistical science knowledge can inform local and regional actions, aided by frameworks recently developed in this special issue and elsewhere. There are no data associated with this paper.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it