Humming along or buzzing off? The elusive consequences of plant-pollinator mismatches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal mismatches among plants and pollinators, driven by climate change, are considered a potential cause of population declines of these mutualists. However, field studies demonstrating population declines as a result of climate-driven phenological mismatches are uncommon, and the extent to which mismatches will be a problem in the future remains unclear. We revisit predicted consequences of climate-driven phenological mismatch in plant-pollinator systems by identifying nine previously-applied assumptions that are violated or insufficiently understood in real systems. Briefly, the assumptions are: (1) Dates of first-flowering (DFF) or dates of first activity (DFA) correctly describe phenology, and disparities between DFF and DFA represent the magnitude of mismatch. (2) “Optimal” matches are measured correctly. (3) Advancement of DFF or DFA will be the primary phenological change in the future. (4) Future phenological shifts will be independent for each species. (5) All plant-pollinator interactions are equally effective. (6) Populations of plants and pollinators are limited by mutualistic interactions. Some previous models have also assumed that the effects of future mismatches will not be influenced by (7) emergence of novel interactions, (8) competition or facilitation from altered co-flowering and co-flight, and (9) phenotypic plasticity and rapid adaptive evolution of phenology. Those assumptions affect the direction, extent, and accuracy of predicted consequences of future phenological mismatch. In discussing them, we identify important topics for future research in pollination ecology.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".