Flowering date of taxonomic families predicts phenological sensitivity to temperature: Implications for forecasting the effects of climate change on unstudied taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Numerous long-term studies in seasonal habitats have tracked interannual variation in first flowering date (FFD) in relation to climate, documenting the effect of warming on the FFD of many species. Despite these efforts, long-term phenological observations are still lacking for many species. If we could forecast responses based on taxonomic affinity, however, then we could leverage existing data to predict the climate-related phenological shifts of many taxa not yet studied. METHODS: We examined phenological time series of 1226 species occurrences (1031 unique species in 119 families) across seven sites in North America and England to determine whether family membership (or family mean FFD) predicts the sensitivity of FFD to standardized interannual changes in temperature and precipitation during seasonal periods before flowering and whether families differ significantly in the direction of their phenological shifts. KEY RESULTS: Patterns observed among species within and across sites are mirrored among family means across sites; early-flowering families advance their FFD in response to warming more than late-flowering families. By contrast, we found no consistent relationships among taxa between mean FFD and sensitivity to precipitation as measured here. CONCLUSIONS: Family membership can be used to identify taxa of high and low sensitivity to temperature within the seasonal, temperate zone plant communities analyzed here. The high sensitivity of early-flowering families (and the absence of early-flowering families not sensitive to temperature) may reflect plasticity in flowering time, which may be adaptive in environments where early-season conditions are highly variable among years.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".