Effects of climate change on phenologies and distributions of bumble bees and the plants they visit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Surveys of bumble bees and the plants they visit, carried out in 1974 near the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in Colorado, were repeated in 2007, thus permitting the testing of hypotheses arising from observed climate change over the intervening 33‐yr period. As expected, given an increase in average air temperature with climate warming and a declining temperature with increasing elevation, there have been significant shifts toward higher elevation for queens or workers or both, for most bumble bee species, for bumble bee queens when species are combined, and for two focal plant species, with no significant downward shifts. However, contrary to our hypotheses, we failed to observe significant altitudinal changes for some bumble bee species and most plant species, and observed changes in elevation were often less than the upward shift of 317 m required to maintain average temperature. As expected, community flowering phenology shifted toward earlier in the season throughout our study area, but bumble bee phenology generally did not change, resulting in decreased synchrony between bees and plants. However, we were unable to confirm the narrower expectation that phenologies of bumble bee workers and community flowering coincided in 1974 but not in 2007. As expected, because of reduced synchrony between bumble bees and community flowering, bumble bee abundance was reduced in 2007 compared with 1974. Hence, climate change in our study area has apparently resulted primarily in reduced abundance and upward shift in distribution for bumble bees and shift toward earlier seasonality for plant flowering. Quantitative disagreements between climate change expectations and our observations warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".