Skewed temperature dependence affects range and abundance in a warming world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population growth metrics such as R 0 are usually asymmetric functions of temperature, with cold-skewed curves arising when the positive effects of a temperature increase outweigh the negative effects, and warm-skewed curves arising in the opposite case. Classically, cold-skewed curves are interpreted as more beneficial to a species under climate warming, because cold-skewness implies increased population growth over a larger proportion of the species's fundamental thermal niche than warm-skewness. However, inference based on the shape of the fitness curve alone, and without considering the synergistic effects of net reproduction, density and dispersal, may yield an incomplete understanding of climate change impacts. We formulate a moving-habitat integrodifference equation model to evaluate how fitness curve skewness affects species’ range size and abundance during climate warming. In contrast to classic interpretations, we find that climate warming adversely affects populations with cold-skewed fitness curves, positively affects populations with warm-skewed curves and has relatively little or mixed effects on populations with symmetric curves. Our results highlight the synergistic effects of fitness curve skewness, spatially heterogeneous densities and dispersal in climate change impact analyses, and that the common approach of mapping changes only in R 0 may be misleading.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".