Contrasting temporal variations in responses of leaf unfolding to daytime and nighttime warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier spring phenological events have been widely reported in plants under global warming. Recent studies reported a slowdown in the warming-induced advanced spring phenology in temperate regions. However, previous research mainly focused on daily mean temperature, thus neglecting the asymmetric phenological responses to daytime and nighttime temperature. Using long-term records of leaf unfolding in eight deciduous species at 1300 sites across central Europe, we assessed and compared the effects of daytime temperature, nighttime temperature, and photoperiod on leaf unfolding during 1951-1980 and 1981-2013. Although leaf unfolding was advanced by daytime warming during 1951-2013, the advancing responses of leaf unfolding significantly decreased from 1951-1980 to 1981-2013 due to a lower accumulation of chilling units by daytime warming. Nighttime warming delayed leaf unfolding during 1951-1980 but advanced it during 1981-2013 due to a higher accumulation of chilling units by nighttime warming. In contrast, critical daylength and plasticity of leaf unfolding dates remained unchanged between 1951 and 2013. Our study provided evidence that daytime warming instead of nighttime warming accounts for the slowdown in the advancing spring phenology and implied that nighttime warming-induced earlier spring phenology may be buffering the slowdown of the advanced spring phenology by daytime warming. The response of spring phenology to nighttime temperature may override that to daytime temperature under the actual trends in global warming.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".