Climate change scenarios and models yield conflicting predictions about the future risk of an invasive species in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pea leafminer Liriomyza huidobrensis (Blanchard) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) is an invasive species in North America and a serious economic pest on a wide variety of crops. We developed a bioclimatic envelope model (BEM) for this species and examined the envelope's potential location in North America under various future climates. We compared the future bioclimatic envelopes for L. huidobrensis using either simple scenarios comprising uniform changes in temperature/precipitation or climate projections from general circulation models (GCMs). Our simple scenarios were: (i) an increase of 0.1°C per degree in latitude with a 20% increase in summer precipitation and a 20% decrease in winter precipitation and (ii) an overall increase of 3°C everywhere, also with the same changes in precipitation. For GCM‐modelled climate change, we used the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis GCM (CGCM2) and the Hadley Centre climate model (HadCM3), each in combination with two scenarios from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (A2 and B2). The BEM results using the simple scenarios were more similar to each other than to the results obtained using GCM projections. The results were also qualitatively different (i.e. spatially different and divergent) depending on which GCM‐scenario combination was used. This modelling exercise illustrates that: (i) results using first approximation simple climate change scenarios can give predictions very different from those that use GCM‐modelled climate projections (comprising a result that has worrying implications for empirical impact research) and that (ii) different GCM‐models using the same scenario can give very different results (implying strong model dependency in projected biological impacts).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".