Increased Arctic climate extremes constrain expected higher plant reproductive success in a warmer climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low reproductive success of Arctic plants is predicted to increase as the climate warms. However, climate extremes add complexity to these predictions. In the extremely cold year of 2018, multiple Arctic trophic levels experienced reproductive failure. We analysed a unique long-term record of seed viability from experimentally warmed and ambient plots at Alexandra Fiord, Ellesmere Island, which has been running since 1992 and included 2018 and the extremely warm year of 2019. Positive and negative July temperature anomalies and summer temperatures have increased significantly by 0.5, −0.3, and 0.4 °C/decade since 1977, respectively, resulting in greater extremes and increased inter-annual variation. Seed viability of some species has increased with climate warming. Across years, seed viability of woody species was consistently higher in warmed than ambient plots while the opposite was true for forbs. In 2018, seed viability of woody species in ambient plots was significantly lower than normal but comparable with past years for forb species. Not all species returned to normal seed viability levels in 2019. Our study highlights the potential for greater sexual reproductive failure in tundra plants with increasing climate extremes. We suggest that poor seed viability of woody species in cold years could constrain shrub recruitment and may aid forb species establishment on bare tundra.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".