Phenological sequences: how early‐season events define those that follow
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Plant phenology is a critical trait, as the timings of phenophases such as budburst, leafout, flowering, and fruiting, are important to plant fitness. Despite much study about when individual phenophases occur and how they may shift with climate change, little is known about how multiple phenophases relate to one another across an entire growing season. We test the extent to which early phenological stages constrain later ones, throughout a growing season, across 25 angiosperm tree species. METHODS: We observed phenology (budburst, leafout, flowering, fruiting, and senescence) of 118 individual trees across 25 species, from April through December 2015. KEY RESULTS: We found that early phenological events weakly constrain most later events, with the strongest constraints seen between consecutive stages. In contrast, interphase duration was a much stronger predictor of phenology, especially for reproductive events, suggesting that the development time of flowers and fruits may constrain the phenology of these events. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the variation in later phenological events can be explained by the timing of earlier events and by interphase durations. This highlights that a shift in one phenophase may often have cascading effects on later phases. Accurate forecasts of climate change impacts should therefore include multiple phenophases within and across years.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it