• Energy Research
• FI close

Literature search and screening We searched for relevant literature with publication month and years Jan 2000- Nov 2022 in two databases: Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/; The Core Collection) and Scopus (https://www.scopus.com). We used the same nested Boolean (i.e., AND between different groups of search terms, OR within groups of similar search terms and NOT for excluding search terms) search string in the title, abstract and keywords fields for both Web of Science (TS) and Scopus (TITLE-ABS-KEY) (complete search strings in the supplementary material, Appendix S1). We targeted the relevant deer species for the boreal and temperate forests (i.e., Alces alces, Capreolus capreolus, Cervus spp., Dama dama, Odocoileus spp., Rangifer tarandus; for distribution maps, see Fig. S2), by using a combination of Latin and common names that we combined with geographical constraints based on names of biogeographical regions, countries, and states. We combined this search string with climate related variables (temperature, precipitation etc., Appendix S2). From here on, we refer to Cervus elaphus as red deer, and C. canadensis as wapiti. We refer to R. tarandus living in Europe and Asia as reindeer but as caribou when living in North America. We restrained the search by language (English) and document type (peer-reviewed papers). Our aim was to be as least exclusive as possible, but this led to some unexpected irrelevant documents. We therefore added exclusion terms to filter out non-targeted biogeographical regions and scientific fields. We did not exclude any topical part of our search because it would be impossible to make a coherent pre-emptive list of terms to exclude. The search hits from Web of Science and Scopus were merged and cleaned of duplicates, resulting in 8154 unique papers. Screening of papers was conducted using Rayyan (Ouzzani et al. 2016), a free web application for reviewing articles. Decisions on exclusion or inclusion were first made by reading the title and abstract of each article and determining their conformity to the criteria targeted by the search terms: right topic (i.e., in context of climate change), species (Cervidae excluding semi-domestic reindeer), geography (boreal and temperate zones), language (English) and type of study (new, or new synthesis of, empirical temporal data on deer response to climate). We included papers of migratory caribou residing in forest for larger parts of the year. Note that papers did not have to specify a climate change context to be included. It was sufficient that it contained temporal data on deer and weather variations. Given the controversies surrounding definitions of climate change, rather few papers proclaim having documented climate change and a stricter criterion would have excluded almost all papers. The robustness of the exclusion criteria and the individual screener divergence of the first screening were tested before the actual screening was done. Fifty randomly drawn papers were reviewed by all authors individually without conferring. The papers were randomly distributed among authors. The discrepancies were rather few (13 out of 49 papers (27%) had at least 1 person with a different opinion than the others). After discussing each of these cases in detail, the basis for coherent decision making was improved. To verify the improvement, another control procedure was applied for the remaining screening: 289 papers were each read by two to four authors. The result of this control screening showed 18 (6%) conflicting decisions. Screening of the remaining 7815 papers was done by the authors one by one and assigned equally among readers according to alphabetic order by the first author of the papers. The first screening finally generated 556 papers possibly relevant for the review. All papers with conflicting decisions in the test and control screenings were included among the 556. The possibly relevant papers were then equally divided between the authors. These papers were read completely and again scrutinized for conformation to criteria, resulting in a final list of 218 papers relevant for review. Data from these papers were then tabulated and systemized per demographics (species, location, season, etc.), deer responses and climate factor. Further details on this data collection are specified in Appendix S3. The table here in Dryad includes the detailed tabulations used to produce Table 1, Figure 1, Figure in the main article, and Table S3 in the Appendix.  Climate change causes far-reaching disruption in nature, where tolerance thresholds already have been exceeded for some plants and animals. In the short-term, deer may respond to climate through individual physiological and behavioral responses. Over time, individual responses can aggregate to the population level and ultimately lead to evolutionary adaptations. We systematically reviewed literature (published 2000-2022) to summarize the effect of temperature, rainfall, snow, combined measures (e.g., the North Atlantic Oscillation) and extreme events, on deer species inhabiting boreal and temperate forests in terms of their physiology, spatial use and population dynamics. We targeted deer species which inhabit relevant biomes in North America, Europe and Asia: moose, roe deer, elk, red deer, sika deer, fallow deer, white-tailed deer, mule deer, caribou and reindeer. Our review (218 papers) shows that many deer populations will likely benefit in-part from warmer winters, but hotter and drier summers may exceed their physiological tolerances. We found support for deer expressing both morphological, physiological, and behavioral plasticity in response to climate variability. For example, some deer species can limit the effects of harsh weather conditions by modifying habitat use and daily activity patterns, while the physiological responses of female deer can lead to long-lasting effects on population dynamics. We identified 20 patterns, among which some illustrate antagonistic pathways, suggesting that detrimental effects will cancel out some of the benefits of climate change. Our findings highlight the influence of local variables (eg. population density and predation) for how deer will respond to climatic conditions. We identified several knowledge gaps, such as studies regarding the potential impact on these animals of extreme weather events, snow type and wetter autumns. The patterns we have identified in this literature review should help managers understand how populations of deer may be affected by regionally projected futures regarding temperature, rainfall and snow. # Literature review protocol: Climate change and deer in boreal and temperate regions [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.jh9w0vtmd](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.jh9w0vtmd) ## Description of the data and file structure We systematically reviewed literature (published 2000-2022) to summarize the effect of temperature, rainfall, snow, combined measures (e.g., the North Atlantic Oscillation) and extreme events, on deer species inhabiting boreal and temperate forests in terms of their physiology, spatial use and population dynamics. We targeted deer species which inhabit relevant biomes in North America, Europe and Asia: moose, roe deer, elk, red deer, sika deer, fallow deer, white-tailed deer, mule deer, caribou and reindeer. After screening, 218 articles remained. The data made available here pertains to these articles. ### Files and variables #### File: Felton\_et\_al\_2024\_GCB\_Protocol\_literature\_review\_Dryad 30 aug no hidden columns.xlsx **Description:** protocol for tabulating relevant information from published literature. ##### Variables * Column B-G: Climatic variables that the studies assessed (temperature, rainfall, snow, combined measures, extreme climatic events) * Column H: animal species * Column I: extreme events * Column K-AF: registration whether information is presented that relate to the three larger topics of the review (Physiology, Spatial use, Population dynamics) and to any of the 20 Patterns Found, which are summarised in Table 2 in the main article. Abbreviations refer to details of such patterns, which are explained in the heading of Table 2 in the main article. * Blank cells = no relevant information exist. Data was derived from the following sources: * We searched for relevant literature with publication month and years Jan 2000- Nov 2022 in two databases: Web of Science ([https://www.webofscience.com/](https://www.webofscience.com/); The Core Collection) and Scopus ([https://www.scopus.com](https://www.scopus.com/)).

Herbivory assessments were made at the plant community and species levels. We focused on three plant species with a widespread occurrence across the temperature gradient: cuckooflower (Cardamine pratensis, Linnaeus), common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum, Baumgerten), and marsh violet (Viola palustris, Linnaeus). For assessments of invertebrate herbivory at the species level, thirty individuals per species of C. pratensis, C. fontanum, and V. palustris were marked in each of ten plots, using a stratified random sampling method where individuals were randomly selected, but the full range of within-plot soil temperatures was represented. For assessments of invertebrate herbivory at the community level, five 50 × 50 cm quadrats were marked at random points in eight of the plots that best captured the full temperature gradient. The community-level herbivory assessment was conducted on 19th June. The number of damaged plants was recorded out of 100 random individuals, selected using a 10 × 10 grid within each 50 × 50 cm quadrat. For the species-level herbivory assessment, individual marked plants were surveyed for signs of invertebrate herbivory every two weeks from 30th May to 2nd July, generating three time-points per species. At each survey, all marked individuals for each species were assessed within a 48-hour period. Plants were recorded as damaged or not damaged by invertebrate herbivores at each time-point. Further details of how phenological stage of development, vegetation community composition, soil temperature, moisture, pH, nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate were recorded are provided in the supporting documentation. This is a dataset of environmental data, vegetation cover, and community- and species-level invertebrate herbivory, sampled at 14 experimental soil plots in the Hengill geothermal valley, Iceland, from May to July 2017. The plots span a temperature gradient of 5-35 °C on average over the sampling period, yet they occur within 1 km of each other and have similar soil moisture, pH, nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate.

Data from: 30 Years Brings Changes to the Arthropod Community of Kibale National Park, Uganda by Opito, E.A., T. Alanko, U. Kalbitzer, M. Nummelin, P. Omeja, A. Valtonen, and Colin A. Chapman. 2023, Biotropica, Article DOI: 10.1111/btp.13206

Data and GrADS scripts needed to reproduce the figures in the article "Probabilistic forecasts of near-term climate change: verification for temperature and precipitation changes from years 1971-2000 to 2011-2020", submitted for publication in Climate Dynamics. Please see the file README for further details.

Dataset related to the article: Virtanen, E.A., Lappalainen, J., Nurmi, M., Viitasalo, M., Tikanmäki, M., Heinonen, J., Atlaskin, E., Kallasvuo, M., Tikkanen, H., Moilanen, A. (2022) Balancing profitability of energy production, societal impacts and biodiversity in offshore wind farm design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 158, 112087. Dataset includes suitability maps for offshore windfarms, where priority values are scaled between 0-1 (note the reversed value scale): analysis solution (A) economy, (B) society, (C) biodiversity, (D) restrictions, (E) A+B+C without restrictions and (F) A+B+C with restrictions. Dataset includes also the conflict map (and R script), where each three main solutions (A, B, C) are mapped onto an RGB color composite map. Additional details can be found from the published article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112087

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.AerChemMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

This dataset contains data and codes required to replicate the results in the article "Joint assessment of generation adequacy with intermittent renewables and hydro storage: A case study in Finland" to be published in Electric Power Systems Research. See the enclosed Readme for further instructions.

This dataset contains spatial predictions of the potential environmental spaces for pingos, ice-wedge polygons and rock glaciers across the Northern Hemisphere permafrost areas. The potential environmental spaces, i.e. conditions where climate, topography and soil properties are suitable for landform presence, were predicted with statistical ensemble modelling employing geospatial data on environmental conditions at 30 arc-second resolution (~1 km). In addition to the baseline period (1950-2000), the predictions are provided for 2041-2060 and 2061-2080 using climate-forcing scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 and 8.5). The resulting dataset consists of five spatial predictions for each landform in GeoTIFF format.The data provide new information on 1) the fine-scale spatial distribution of permafrost landforms in the Northern Hemisphere, 2) the potential future alterations in the environmental suitability for permafrost landforms due to climate change, and 3) the circumpolar distribution of various ground ice types, and can 4) facilitate efforts to inventory permafrost landforms in incompletely mapped areas.

Figure 1data_Exp 2Figure 1 data: Condition of experimental seedlings in hummocks with contrasting shrub density and tree canopy in Experiment 2: No Trees - Low Shrub biomass (NTLS), No Trees - High Shrub biomass (NTHS), Present Trees - Low Shrub biomass (PTLS) and Present Trees - High shrub biomass (PTHS) during the warmest growing season (2011) and at the end of the experiment (2013). Seedling condition was defined as: healthy (< 50% of the needles turned yellow or brown) or unhealthy (> 50% of the needles turned yellow or brown). Seedlings were 1 month old at plantation time in the July 2010.Table 1_environmental conditions_Exp 1Table 1 data: Environmental conditions and vegetation characteristics in hummocks (circular and bands) and lawns for Experiment 1. Water table depth below surface is an average for the four growing seasons (2010-2013)Table 2_ photosynthesis data_Exp 1Table 2 photosynthesis data: Photosynthesis rates for experimental pine seedlings in hummocks (circular and bands) versus adjacent lawns for Experiment 1.Table 2_seedling responses_Exp 1Table 2 data: Responses of experimental pine seedlings in hummocks (circular and bands) versus adjacent lawns for Experiment 1 after 4 growing seasons. ST: Seeds inserted on top of moss; SB: Seeds inserted below moss; Small seedling (1 month old at plantation time); Large seedling (2 months old at plantation time). Emergence = % of planted seeds emerged after 1 year. Condition = % healthy seedlings. Stem growth corresponds to vertical stem growth for germinating (ST and SB) seedlings and new stem growth for older (small and large) seedlings.Table 3_regression seedling-environment_Exp 1Table 3 data for generalized linear models assessing the responses of experimental pine seedlings in hummocks (circular and bands) and adjacent lawns for Experiment 1 during the whole experimental period (2010-2013). ST: Seedlings from seeds inserted on top of moss; SB: Seedlings from seeds inserted below moss; Small seedling (1 month old at plantation time); Large seedling (2 months old at plantation time). Condition = % healthy seedlings. Growth = stem growth.Table 4_Environmental data_Exp 2Table 4: Environmental conditions in hummocks with contrasting shrub density and tree canopy in Experiment 2: No Trees - Low Shrub biomass (NTLS), No Trees - High Shrub biomass (NTHS), Present Trees - Low Shrub biomass (PTLS) and Present Trees - High shrub biomass (PTHS).Table 4 and Table S5a_seedling performance_Exp 2Table 4: Seedling performance in hummocks with contrasting shrub density and tree canopy in Experiment 2: No Trees - Low Shrub biomass (NTLS), No Trees - High Shrub biomass (NTHS), Present Trees - Low Shrub biomass (PTLS) and Present Trees - High shrub biomass (PTHS). Seedling emergence, condition and survival from seeds inserted below the moss (SB), and from small planted seedlings.Table S3_cox regression (survival analysis)_Exp 1Table S3: Data for Cox survival analysis for experimental pine seedlings in hummocks (circular and bands) versus adjacent lawns during 2010-2013. ST: Seedlings from seeds inserted on top of moss; SB: Seedlings from seeds inserted below moss; Small seedling (1 month old, 10 cm tall at plantation time); Large seedling (2 months old, 30 cm tall at plantation time).Table S4_ regression seedling-environment 2011_Exp 1Table S4: Data for generalized linear models assessing the responses of experimental pine seedlings in hummocks (circular and bands) and adjacent lawns for Experiment 1 in 2011. Small seedling (1 month old, 10 cm tall at plantation time); Large seedling (2 months old, 30 cm tall at plantation time). Condition = % healthy seedlings. Growth = stem growth. Boreal ecosystems are warming roughly twice as fast as the global average, resulting in woody expansion that could further speed up the climate warming. Boreal peatbogs are waterlogged systems that store more than 30% of the global soil carbon. Facilitative effects of shrubs and trees on the establishment of new individuals could increase tree cover with profound consequences for the structure and functioning of boreal peatbogs, carbon sequestration and climate. We conducted two field experiments in boreal peatbogs to assess the mechanisms that explain tree seedling recruitment and to estimate the strength of positive feedbacks between shrubs and trees. We planted seeds and seedlings of Pinus sylvestris in microsites with contrasting water-tables and woody cover and manipulated both shrub canopy and root competition. We monitored seedling emergence, growth and survival for up to four growing seasons and assessed how seedling responses related to abiotic and biotic conditions. We found that tree recruitment is more successful in drier topographical microsites with deeper water-tables. On these hummocks, shrubs have both positive and negative effects on tree seedling establishment. Shrub cover improved tree seedling condition, growth and survival during the warmest growing season. In turn, higher tree basal area correlates positively with soil nutrient availability, shrub biomass and abundance of tree juveniles. Synthesis. Our results suggest that shrubs facilitate tree colonization of peatbogs which further increases shrub growth. These facilitative effects seem to be stronger under warmer conditions suggesting that a higher frequency of warmer and dry summers may lead to stronger positive interactions between shrubs and trees that could eventually facilitate a shift from moss to tree-dominated systems.