MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964552270 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.13077

Usefulness and limitations of thermal performance curves in predicting ectotherm development under climatic variability

2019· article· en· W2964552270 on OpenAlexaff
Rassim Khelifa, Wolf U. Blanckenhorn, Jeannine Roy, Patrick T. Rohner, Hayat Mahdjoub

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsEctothermTemperate climateLatitudeClimate changeEnvironmental scienceAdaptation (eye)Atmospheric sciencesThermalEcologyClimatologyBiologyMeteorologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal performance curves (TPCs) have been estimated in multiple ectotherm species to understand their thermal plasticity and adaptation and to predict the effect of global warming. However, TPCs are typically assessed under constant temperature regimes, so their reliability for predicting thermal responses in the wild where temperature fluctuates diurnally and seasonally remains poorly documented. Here, we use distant latitudinal populations of five species of sepsid flies (Diptera: Sepsidae) from the temperate region (Europe, North Africa, North America) to compare estimates derived from constant TPCs with observed development rate under fluctuating temperatures in laboratory and field conditions. TPCs changed across gradients in that flies originating from higher latitudes showed accelerated development at higher temperatures, an adaptive response. TPCs were then used to predict development rates observed under fluctuating temperatures; these predictions were relatively accurate in the laboratory but not the field. Interestingly, the precision of TPC predictions depended not only on the resolution of temperature data, with daily and overall temperature summing performing better than hourly temperature summing, but also on the frequency of temperatures falling below the estimated critical minimum temperature. Hourly temperature resolution most strongly underestimated actual development rates, because flies apparently either did not stop growing when temperatures dropped below this threshold, or they sped up their growth when the temperature rose again, thus most severely reflecting this error. We conclude that when flies do not encounter cold temperatures, TPC predictions based on constant temperatures can accurately reflect performance under fluctuating temperatures if adequately adjusted for nonlinearities, but when encountering cold temperatures, this method is more error-prone. Our study emphasizes the importance of the resolution of temperature data and cold temperatures in shaping thermal reaction norms.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations59
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207