Climate change and voltinism in <scp>C</scp>alifornian insect pest species: sensitivity to location, scenario and climate model choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental studies of the impact of climatic change are hampered by their inability to consider multiple climate change scenarios and indeed often consider no more than simple climate sensitivity such as a uniform increase in temperature. Modelling efforts offer the ability to consider a much wider range of realistic climate projections and are therefore useful, in particular, for estimating the sensitivity of impact predictions to differences in geographical location, and choice of climate change scenario and climate model projections. In this study, we used well-established degree-day models to predict the voltinism of 13 agronomically important pests in California, USA. We ran these models using the projections from three Atmosphere-Ocean Coupled Global Circulation Models (AOCGCMs or GCMs), in conjunction with the SRES scenarios. We ran these for two locations representing northern and southern California. We did this for both the 2050s and 2090s. We used anova to partition the variation in the resulting voltinism among time period, climate change scenario, GCM and geographical location. For these 13 pest species, the choice of climate model explained an average of 42% of the total variation in voltinism, far more than did geographical location (33%), time period (17%) or scenario (1%). The remaining 7% of the variation was explained by various interactions, of which the location by GCM interaction was the strongest (5%). Regardless of these sources of uncertainty, a robust conclusion from our work is that all 13 pest species are likely to experience increases in the number of generations that they complete each year. Such increased voltinism is likely to have significant consequences for crop protection and production.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".