Climate Change and Temperate Zone Insects: The Tyranny of Thermodynamics Meets the World of Limited Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change will result in warmer temperatures and an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Given that higher temperatures increase the reproductive rate of temperate zone insects, insect population growth rates are predicted to increase in the temperate zone in response to climate. This consensus, however, rests on the assumption that food is freely available. However, under conditions of limited food, the reproductive output of the Texan cricket Gryllus texensis (Cade and Otte) was highest at its current normal average temperature and declined with increasing temperature. Moreover, low food availability decreased survival during a simulated heat wave. Therefore, the effects of climate change on this species, and possibly on many others, are likely to hinge on food availability. Extrapolation from our data suggests that G. texensis will show larger yearly fluctuations in population size as climate change continues, and this will also have ecological repercussions. Only those temperate zone insects with a ready supply of food (e.g., agricultural pests) are likely to experience the predicted increase in population growth in response to climate change; food-limited species are likely to experience a population decline.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".