Toward a conceptual synthesis for climate change responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim To identify hypotheses for how climate change affects long‐term population persistence that can be used as a framework for future syntheses of ecological responses to climate change. Location Global. Methods We surveyed ecological and evolutionary concepts related to how a changing climate might alter population persistence. We organized established concepts into a two‐stage framework that relates abiotic change to population persistence via changes in the rates or outcomes of ecological and evolutionary processes. We surveyed reviews of climate change responses, and evaluated patterns in light of our conceptual framework. Results We classified hypotheses for population responses to climate change as one of two types: (1) hypotheses that relate rates of ecological and evolutionary processes (plasticity, dispersal, population growth and evolution) to abiotic change, and (2) hypotheses that relate changes in these processes to four fundamental population‐level responses (colonization, acclimatization, adaptation or extinction). We found that a disproportionate emphasis on response in the climate change literature is difficult to reconcile with ecological and evolutionary theories that emphasize processes. We discuss a set of 24 hypotheses that represent gaps in the literature that limit our ability determine whether observed climate change responses are sufficient to facilitate persistence through future climate change. Main conclusions Though theory relates environmental change to fundamental ecological and evolutionary processes and population‐level responses, clear hypotheses based on theory have not been systematically formulated and tested in the context of climate change. Stronger links between basic theory and observed impacts of climate change are required to assess which responses are common, likely or able to facilitate population persistence despite ongoing environmental change. We anticipate that a hypothesis‐testing framework will reveal that indirect effects of climate change responses are more pervasive than previously thought and related to a few general processes, even though the patterns they create are incredibly diverse.
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 | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".