Early onset of spring increases the phenological mismatch between plants and pollinators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate warming accelerates the timing of flowering and insect pollinator emergence, especially in spring. If these phenological shifts progress independently between species, features of plant-pollinator mutualisms may be modified. However, evidence of phenological mismatch in pollination systems is limited. We investigated the phenologies of a spring ephemeral, Corydalis ambigua, and its pollinators (bumble bees), and seed-set success over 10-14 years in three populations. Although both flowering onset and first detection of overwintered queen bees in the C. ambigua populations were closely related to snowmelt time and/or spring temperature, flowering tended to be ahead of first pollinator detection when spring came early, resulting in lower seed production owing to low pollination service. Relationships between flowering onset time, phenological mismatch, and seed-set success strongly suggest that phenological mismatch is a major limiting factor for reproduction of spring ephemerals. This report demonstrates the mechanism of phenological mismatch and its ecological impact on plant-pollinator interactions based on long-term monitoring. Frequent occurrence of mismatch can decrease seed production and may affect the population dynamics of spring ephemerals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it