How will mosquitoes adapt to climate change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately predicting and mitigating the effects of climate change on species ranges and interactions is a critical challenge. In particular, mosquito-borne diseases like malaria and dengue are poised to shift with climate change. Understanding this impact hinges on a key open question: How will mosquitoes adapt to climate change? Here we adapt a simple framework widely used in conservation biology—evolutionary rescue models—to investigate the potential for mosquito climate adaptation, and we synthesize current evidence, focusing on adaptation to rising temperatures. Short mosquito generation times, high population growth rates, and strong temperature-imposed selection favor mosquito thermal adaptation. However, knowledge gaps about the extent of phenotypic and genotypic variation in thermal tolerance within mosquito populations, the environmental sensitivity of selection, and the role of phenotypic plasticity constrain our ability to make more precise estimates. Future research efforts should prioritize filling these data gaps. Specifically, we outline how common garden and selection experiments can be used to this end. Collecting and incorporating these data into an evolutionary rescue framework will improve estimates of mosquito adaptive potential and of changes in mosquito-borne disease transmission under climate change, and this approach can be applied more broadly to pests as well as species of conservation concern.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".