High Arctic plants show independent responses to pollination and experimental warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic plants will experience both higher temperatures and changes to their pollination regime under future climate change scenarios. However, reproductive responses to pollination, warming, and a pollination–warming interaction likely vary with seasonal timing in phenology, and may be more pronounced in early-flowering plants than later-flowering plants. To test these hypotheses, we applied hand pollination and exclusion treatments to three Arctic plant species (early-flowering Salix arctica Pall., mid-season flowering Dryas integrifolia Vahl, and late-flowering Papaver radicatum Rottb.) inside and outside of open-top chambers (OTCs), to determine how pollination and warming may interact. We found that OTCs did not significantly reduce visitation by insects, nor did they reduce seed production in wind-pollinated S. arctica. Flower production and seed germination rates for D. integrifolia matched the predictions for warmth- and pollen-limited plants. Reproduction in P. radicatum did not respond strongly to either warming or pollination. Overall, we found that High Arctic plant reproduction is affected independently by pollination and OTC warming, indicating that plant responses to ongoing increases in temperature will not be strongly altered by changes in insect pollination.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".