Report on the observed climate, projected climate, and projected biodiversity changes for Riding Mountain National Park of Canada under differing levels of warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riding Mountains National Park is among the bottom 45% of all non-marine protected areas, globally. Most of the park is projected to be resilient to climate change to between 1.5° - 2°C. Above 2°C, most of the park is projected to require increasing levels of adaptation effort. Averaged over the entire area of this park, with 4°C warming (global, above pre-industrial), the area is projected to remain climatically suitable for 45.4% of its terrestrial biodiversity (fungi, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates), with none of its area remaining an overall refugia (remaining climatically suitable for >75% of the species) for biodiversity. If warming levels were held to 2°C, only 27.2% of the area would remain a climatic refugia and the area would remain climatically suitable for 77.4% of its terrestrial biodiversity. However, if warming were held to 1.5°C then 94.8% of the park would be a climate refugia for biodiversity. Between 1961-1990 and 1991-2020 the average monthly temperature has increased by -0.7° - +2.0°C (December). With warming levels of 2.0°C the new average monthly temperature in June-October is equivalent to that only seen 1 in 3 years in 1961-1990, except for July having a new average temperature equivalent to that experienced 1 in 20 years. Four months have seen decreases in precipitation with the rest seeing increases. Models project that all months except July-September will become wetter. The combination of increased temperatures and reduced rainfall indicate that there could be an increase in fire risk. The number of months classified as being in severe drought have dropped substantially between 1961-1990 and 1986-2015. Under the climate change scenarios examined the number of months in severe drought are projected to increase, doubling with 2°C warming. By 3°C warming, severe droughts of longer than one year are projected to occur. Biodiversity adaptation options generally allow for business-as-usual conservation, taking into account changes in extreme events to 1.5°C warming. Once warming exceeds 2°C most of the park will need increasing levels of adaptation effort. By 4°C warming, many areas of the park are projected to be in transition to new habitats and insect assemblages.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".