Fig 1.
Study area location of forest stands sampled for birds and beetles.
Base layer of the region was from ArcGIS (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1768e8369a214dfab4e2167d5c5f2454).
Table 1.
We considered three of them for reference (Climate = Baseline, Harvest = NoHarvest; Climate = RCP 4.5, Harvest = NoHarvest; Climate = RCP 8.5, Harvest = NoHarvest) and compared them to six other scenarios. Under each climate scenario (Baseline, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) we compared NoHarvest to Harvest0.5 and Harvest, which makes six comparisons in total.
Table 2.
Natural habitats used (if less than 50% of the pixel’s surface is in disturbance).
Fig 2.
Performance metrics (area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity (Sens), specificity (Spec) and the true skill statistic (TSS)) of the selected models (a, b, c). Percentage of the predictor variables that were included in the species regressions (d). Abbreviations: distance to the nearest fire (dist_pert_Fire), stand age (Age), frequency of conifer dense (FreqConDens), frequency of conifer open (FreqConOpen), frequency of mixed wood (FreqMixed), frequency of open habitat (FreqOpen), frequency of disturbance by fire (FreqFire), frequency of disturbance by cut (FreqCut).
Table 3.
Percentage of the area occupied by the different land covers in 2100 (stand age average in years).
Abbreviations: conifer dense (ConDens), conifer open (ConOpen), mixed wood (Mixed), open habitat (Open), Other, disturbance by fire (Fire), disturbance by cut (Cut) and Fire+Cut (Disturbance).
Fig 3.
Regional Bray-Curtis dissimilarity measures (Eq 3) computed based on the difference in species regional occupancy between reference and simulated scenario.
At each climate change scenario (Baseline, RCP 4.5, RCP 8.5), we computed the dissimilarity between Harvest0.5 and Harvest vs. NoHarvest in 2100. Under Baseline, we compared respectively Baseline-NoHarvest to Baseline-Harvest0.5 and Baseline-NoHarvest to Baseline-Harvest. Under RCP 4.5 we compared respectively RCP 4.5-NoHarvest to RCP 4.5-Harvest0.5 and RCP 4.5-NoHarvest to RCP 4.5-Harvest. Finally, under RCP 8.5 we compared respectively RCP 8.5-NoHarvest to RCP 8.5-Harvest0.5 and RCP 8.5-NoHarvest to RCP 8.5-Harvest. The abbreviation “None” represents the case of species associated to closed forests.
Fig 4.
The average maps of the potential occurrence distribution for each taxon based on the four scenarios BaselineNoHarvest, BaselineHarvest, RCP 8.5NoHarvest and RCP 8.5Harvest.
The black line represents the northern limit for forest harvesting activities.
Fig 5.
(a) Regional Bray-Curtis dissimilarity ratio (BC_ratio) with the percentage of change in the regional occupancy probability (). At each climate change scenario (Baseline, RCP 4.5, RCP 8.5), we computed the change in the ROP (Eq 1) and Bray-Curtis ratio (Eq 4) between Harvest0.5 and Harvest vs. NoHarvest in 2100. (b) Percentage of change in the regional occupancy probability between Harvest and Noharvest under the baseline and RCP 8.5 for bird species. Abbreviations: late succession forest (LSF), early-to-mid succession forest (EMSF), generalist species (G).(c-d) Percentage of change in the regional occupancy probability between Harvest and Noharvest under the baseline and RCP 8.5 for flying and ground-dwelling beetles species with relation to a disturbance.
Fig 6.
Conditional winning probability (Eq 2) of bird species among land covers when the landscape changes from NoHarvest to “Harvest”, under the three climates scenarios.
Under Baseline, we compared Baseline-NoHarvest to Baseline-Harvest. Under RCP 4.5 we compared RCP 4.5-NoHarvest to RCP 4.5-Harvest. Finally, under RCP 8.5 we compared RCP 8.5-NoHarvest to RCP 8.5-Harvest.