Olive phenology as a sensitive indicator of future climatic warming in the Mediterranean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Experimental and modelling work suggests a strong dependence of olive flowering date on spring temperatures. Since airborne pollen concentrations reflect the flowering phenology of olive populations within a radius of 50 km, they may be a sensitive regional indicator of climatic warming. We assessed this potential sensitivity with phenology models fitted to flowering dates inferred from maximum airborne pollen data. Of four models tested, a thermal time model gave the best fit for Montpellier, France, and was the most effective at the regional scale, providing reasonable predictions for 10 sites in the western Mediterranean. This model was forced with replicated future temperature simulations for the western Mediterranean from a coupled ocean‐atmosphere general circulation model (GCM). The GCM temperatures rose by 4·5 °C between 1990 and 2099 with a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, and modelled flowering date advanced at a rate of 6·2 d per °C. The results indicated that this long‐term regional trend in phenology might be statistically significant as early as 2030, but with marked spatial variation in magnitude, with the calculated flowering date between the 1990s and 2030s advancing by 3–23 d. Future monitoring of airborne olive pollen may therefore provide an early biological indicator of climatic warming in the Mediterranean.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".