An examination of synchrony between insect emergence and flowering in Rocky Mountain meadows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One possible effect of climate change is the generation of a mismatch in the seasonal timing of interacting organisms, owing to species-specific shifts in phenology. Despite concerns that plants and pollinators might be at risk of such decoupling, there have been few attempts to test this hypothesis using detailed phenological data on insect emergence and flowering at the same localities. In particular, there are few data sets on pollinator flight seasons that are independent of flowering phenology, because pollinators are typically collected at flowers. To address this problem, we established standardized nesting habitat (trap nests) for solitary bees and wasps at sites along an elevational gradient in the Rocky Mountains, and monitored emergence during three growing seasons. We also recorded air temperatures and flowering phenology at each site. Using a reciprocal transplant experiment with nesting bees, we confirmed that local environmental conditions are the primary determinants of emergence phenology. We were then able to develop phenology models to describe timing of pollinator emergence or flowering, across all sites and years, as a function of accumulated degree-days. Although phenology of both plants and insects is well described by thermal models, the best models for insects suggest generally higher threshold temperatures for development or diapause termination than those required for plants. In addition, degree-day requirements for most species, both plants and insects, were lower in locations with longer winters, indicating either a chilling or vernalization requirement that is more completely fulfilled at colder sites, or a critical photoperiod before which degree-day accumulation does not contribute to development. Overall, these results suggest that phenology of plants and trap-nesting bees and wasps is regulated in similar ways by temperature, but that plants are more likely than insects to advance phenology in response to springtime warming. We discuss the implications of these results for plants and pollinators, and suggest that phenological decoupling alone is unlikely to threaten population persistence for most species in our study area.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".