Forecasting the development of boreal paludified forests in response to climate change: a case study using Ontario ecosite classification

Forest Ecosystems

Table 2 Paludification scores for static and dynamic stand scale factors

Surficial deposit (D)		Soil texture (T)		Humus form (H)		Soil organic layer thickness (SOL)		Moisture regime (M)		Overstorey (O)
Class	Score	Class ¹	Score	Class ¹	Score	Class ²	Score	Class ³	Score	Class	Score
Rock	0	Rock	0	Mull	0	0–9	0	Dry	0	Other spp.	0
Aeolian	1	Sandy	0	Moder	0	10–19	1	Moderately fresh	0	Black spruce	1
Fluviatil	1	Coarse loam	0	Humic mor	1	20–29	1	Fresh	0
Fluvial till	1	Medium loam	1	Fibric mor	1	30–39	2	Very fresh	0
Clay till	2	Silty	1	Humic	2	40–120	2	Moderately moist	1
Lacustrine	2	Fine loam	1	Mesic	2	>120	2	Moist	2
Organic	2	Clay	2	Fibric	2			Very moist	3
								Wet	4
								Very wet	5

Each static and dynamic factor was divided into classes, each of which was attributed a score related to its paludification “power”; 0 = null “power”, 1 = low “power”, 5 = high “power”. Adding up the score of each factor, gives a Paludification Index that estimates the liability of each stand to paludification.
¹According to Sims and Baldwin (1996).
²In cm. In our paludification index, we used the median value of each class.
³According to Sims et al. (1989).