Spring phenology at different altitudes is becoming more uniform under global warming in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Under current global warming, high‐elevation regions are expected to experience faster warming than low‐elevation regions. However, due to the lack of studies based on long‐term large‐scale data, the relationship between tree spring phenology and the elevation‐dependent warming is unclear. Using 652k records of leaf unfolding of five temperate tree species monitored during 1951–2013 in situ in Europe, we discovered a nonlinear trend in the altitudinal sensitivity ( S A , shifted days per 100 m in altitude) in spring phenology. A delayed leaf unfolding (2.7 ± 0.6 days per decade) was observed at high elevations possibly due to decreased spring forcing between 1951 and 1980. The delayed leaf unfolding at high‐elevation regions was companied by a simultaneous advancing of leaf unfolding at low elevations. These divergent trends contributed to a significant increase in the S A (0.36 ± 0.07 days 100/m per decade) during 1951–1980. Since 1980, the S A started to decline with a rate of −0.32 ± 0.07 days 100/m per decade, possibly due to reduced chilling at low elevations and improved efficiency of spring forcing in advancing the leaf unfolding at high elevations, the latter being caused by increased chilling. Our results suggest that due to both different temperature changes at the different altitudes, and the different tree responses to these changes, the tree phenology has shifted at different rates leading to a more uniform phenology at different altitudes during recent decades.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".