MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phenological sensitivity to temperature at broad scales: opportunities and challenges of natural history collections

2017· article· en· W2749064024 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather M. Kharouba, Mark Vellend

Bibliographic record

VenueBiodiversity Information Science and Standards · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenologyClimate changeEcologyButterflyGlobal warmingNatural historyVariation (astronomy)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seasonal timing of biological events (i.e. phenology) has been frequently observed to shift in response to recent climate change. While many of these events now occur earlier due to warmer temperatures, there is considerable variation in the direction and magnitude of these shifts across species. This variation could have consequences for species interactions and ecological communities, especially when the relative timing of key life cycle events among species is disrupted. As a first step to better understand the causes and consequences of variation in species’ phenological responses to climate change, we used natural history collections to quantify and compare broad-scale patterns in phenology-temperature relationships for Canadian butterflies and their nectar food plants over the past century. The phenology of both groups advanced in response to warmer temperatures - both across years and sites. Across butterfly-plant associations, flowering time was significantly more sensitive to temperature than the timing of butterfly flight. However, the sensitivities were not correlated across associations. The findings we will present indicate that warming-driven shifts in the timing of species interactions are likely to be prevalent. The opportunities and challenges associated with using natural history collections for detecting and linking phenological responses to climate change will also be discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.136 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiodiversity Information Science and StandardsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207