Data from: Changing climate may drive large shifts in vegetation zones of Oregon, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipating plausible future ecosystem states is necessary for effective ecosystem management. We use climate analog-based impact models and a co-production process with land managers to project future vegetation changes for the state of Oregon, United States (2041-2070, RCP 8.5) at a management-relevant spatial resolution (270 meters). We explored multiple analog-based methodologies, evaluated analog model performance with contemporary validation, and leveraged climate analogs to assess projection uncertainty by quantifying areas where multiple vegetation trajectories are plausible under a single climate scenario. We find that analog-based models performed well at reproducing landscape-level vegetation composition, and moderately well at reproducing vegetation at the pixel level. Our results suggest that 64 % of the study area will experience future climate conditions that support different potential natural vegetation types, and 59 % will experience climates corresponding with different potential plant physiognomic types, compared to reference-period conditions. We project a 60% reduction of mesic conifer-dominated forests with transitions to mixed evergreen forest types. We also project losses to dry forests, cold forests and parklands, with commensurate expansions of shrublands, grasslands, and geographic redistribution of dry forest types. We find that in many areas, several vegetation trajectories are plausible under a single climate scenario. Finally, we provide guidance for using future vegetation projections and uncertainty outputs in management decisions using the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) adaptation framework.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".