MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329698785 · doi:10.1139/b2012-001

The response of flowering time to global warming in a high-altitude plant: the impact of genetics and the environment

2012· article· en· W2329698785 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johanne Brunet, Zachary Larson‐Rabin

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenotypic plasticityBiologyAdaptation (eye)Altitude (triangle)EcologyPhenotypeGenetic variationGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In high-altitude habitats, an increase in temperature and greater precipitation in the form of rain represent climate changes typically associated with global warming. We determined whether phenotypic plasticity and genetic changes in the mean phenotype could affect the adaptation of flowering time to changes in the environment resulting from global warming in a montane plant species, Aquilegia coerulea James. We collected seeds from 17 plants from each of three natural populations. For each of these 51 families, we assigned 3–4 individuals to each of four water and temperature treatments. We observed phenotypic plasticity in flowering time in response to both temperature and water availability but no genetic variance or genetic differentiation in phenotypic plasticity. These results indicate that phenotypic plasticity could provide a quick response to environmental changes but provides little evolutionary potential. In contrast to phenotypic plasticity in flowering time, the mean flowering time did vary among families and among populations, suggesting a genetic basis to flowering time and adaptation in the different populations. The most likely scenario for the adaptation of this plant species to climate change is a rapid response via phenotypic plasticity followed by selection and micro-evolutionary changes in the mean phenotype.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207