1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
APPENDIX. Supplementary data
S1 Table. Species-specific growth parameter values used in JABOWA-III-simulation of forest
succession and competition in western Nova Scotia.
Species
AGEmax
Dmax
Hmax
S
G
SAP
AINC
b2
b3
American
beech
Balsam fir
400
160
3660
3
100.85
6
0.003
44.0
0.137
200
86
2270
3
118.10
5
0.003
50.1
0.291
Black spruce
250
46
2740
3
36.80
5
0.003
113.9
1.240
Eastern
hemlock
Eastern larch
700
150
3660
3
98.9
6
0.003
47.0
0.156
250
85
3050
1
99.24
13
0.003
68.5
0.403
Red maple
250
150
3660
2
245.87
6
0.003
47.0
0.156
Red oak
400
100
3050
2
123.85
13
0.003
58.3
0.291
Red pine
300
91
3050
1
179.86
6
0.003
64.0
0.352
Red spruce
400
60
2290
3
58.30
5
0.003
71.8
0.598
Sugar maple
400
170
3350
3
136.50
6
0.003
37.8
0.111
Aspen
120
100
3050
1
199.75
13
0.003
58.3
0.291
White spruce
230
53
3350
2
105.57
5
0.003
121.2
1.140
White ash
200
150
2440
2
169.62
13
0.003
30.7
0.102
White birch
150
76
3050
1
218.61
13
0.003
76.6
0.504
White pine
400
101
4570
2
162.38
7
0.003
87.8
0.435
Yellow birch
300
100
3050
3
165.14
18
0.003
58.3
0.291
AGEmax, naturally maximum life span (years); Dmax, maximum diameter at breast height (cm); Hmax,
maximum height (cm); S, shade tolerance classes; G, growth rate scaling coefficient; SAP, speciesspecific maximum number of saplings that can be added to a plot in any one year; AINC, minimum
diameter increment required per year for an individual tree to avoid being subjected to higher
probability of mortality (affecting mortality probabilities); b2 and b3 are coefficient of height allometry.
1|P age
S2 Table. Classification of the study area into 12 forestland types based on probability of
species occurrence surfaces generated from an abiotic-centric species distribution model (after
Baah-Acheamfour et al. 2013); all values are in percent (%) a.
Cluster number
Species
Balsam fir
Black spruce
Eastern hemlock
Eastern larch
Red pine
Red spruce
White spruce
Eastern white
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
6
89
16
88
62
19
18
89
20
0
12
85
66
65
15
12
12
68
21
23
4
0
9
4
18
3
52
3
3
23
89
2
3
0
3
15
55
1
2
8
3
0
12
3
3
3
8
0
12
3
14
0
0
11
5
0
9
5
0
0
58
3
63
4
64
16
67
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
55
1
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
12
4
0
24
4
51
62
0
14
0
0
0
8
5
5
2
3
14
0
12
0
15
12
51
14
0
9
0
3
0
0
0
50
18
87
18
3
12
2
13
3
2
6
0
0
50
54
20
2
22
6
0
3
0
2
0
0
19
13
60
0
13
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
52
15
13
0
6
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
13
4
3
0
9
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
50
65
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
3
2
0
22
13
50
pine
American beech
Red maple
Red oak
Sugar maple
Trembling aspen
White ash
White birch
Yellow birch
11
12
a
Within a cluster, species with probability of occurrence > 25% (Lenihan 1993) are used to name
individual forestland type and are in bold.
2|P age
S3 Table. Accuracy assessment of forestland types (Baah-Acheamfour et al. 2013) with the
kappa statistic. Class limits for the assessment scale are based on an article by Monserud and
Leemans (1990), namely <0.20 (poor), 0.20–0.40 (fair), 0.40–0.50 (moderate), 0.50–0.70
(good), 0.70–0.80 (very good), and >0.80 (excellent) a.
% coveragea
kappa
Assessment
Black spruce
4.1
0.72
very good
Black spruce–eastern hemlock–red spruce
3.0
0.71
very good
Balsam fir–black spruce
2.3
0.80
very good
Red spruce–white pine–eastern hemlock
1.3
0.64
good
Balsam fir
7.8
0.86
excellent
Red spruce–balsam fir–white pine
5.9
0.63
good
Black spruce–white spruce
4.4
0.63
very good
Eastern hemlock–red spruce
3.4
0.70
good
Balsam fir–red maple
20.7
0.53
good
Trembling aspen–white birch–red oak
10.5
0.45
moderate
Red maple–white birch–red oak
14.8
0.65
good
Sugar maple–beech–yellow birch
10.4
0.49
moderate
0.65
good
Forestland type
Overall
13
a
Indicates percent coverage of the entire study area
14
15
16
3|P age
(a) Atlantic Maritime Ecozone of Canada
(Canada)
17
18
(b) Western Ecoregion of Nova Scotia
Legend
Valley Slope
South Mountain
Clare
19
LaHave Drumlins
20
Rossignol
21
22
Sable
Flint
780
23
24
25
26
S1 Fig. Location of the study area: Atlantic Maritime Ecozone of Canada a) , and a map of the
Western Ecoregion depicting ecodistricts b); areas labeled in red and black (not shown in
legend) are not addressed in the study.
4|P age
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
S 2 Fig. Species-specific ecological response functions for (a) normalized incident
photosynthetically active radiation (nPAR), (b) soil water content (SWC), and (c) growing
degree days (GDD) that were employed in modeling abiotic-centric potential species
distribution. The response functions were parameterized from the basic understanding of
physiology, morphology, and species occurrence along gradients of abiotic predictor
variables.
36
37
38
39
40
5|P age
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
S 3 Fig. Projected distribution of LanDSET-modeled growing-season accumulated
photosynthetically active radiation [PAR (a; in MJ m-2)] for cloud-free conditions; relative
soil water content [SWC (b)]; and growing degree day sums [GDD (c; oC)] generated from
remote sensing data. All surfaces are given at 70-m resolution.
48
49
50
51
6|P age