Effects of experimental warming on survival, phenology, and morphology of an aquatic insect ( <scp>O</scp> donata)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Organisms can respond to changing climatic conditions in multiple ways including changes in phenology, body size or morphology, and range shifts. Understanding how developmental temperatures affect insect life‐history timing and morphology is crucial because body size and morphology affect multiple aspects of life history, including dispersal ability, whereas phenology can shape population performance and community interactions. 2. It was experimentally assessed how developmental temperatures experienced by aquatic larvae affected survival, phenology, and adult morphology of dragonflies [ P achydiplax longipennis ( B urmeister)]. Larvae were reared under three environmental temperatures: ambient, +2.5, and +5 °C, corresponding to temperature projections for our study area 50 and 100 years in the future, respectively. Experimental temperature treatments tracked naturally‐occurring variation. 3. Clear effects of temperature were found in the rearing environment on survival and phenology: dragonflies reared at the highest temperatures had the lowest survival rates and emerged from the larval stage approximately 3 weeks earlier than animals reared at ambient temperatures. There was no effect of rearing temperature on overall body size. Although neither the relative wing nor thorax size was affected by warming, a non‐significant trend towards an interaction between sex and warming in relative thorax size suggests that males may be more sensitive to warming than females, a pattern that should be investigated further. 4. Warming strongly affected survival in the larval stage and the phenology of adult emergence. Understanding how warming in the developmental environment affects later life‐history stages is critical to interpreting the consequences of warming for organismal performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".