How phenological tracking shapes species and communities in non‐stationary environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change alters the environments of all species. Predicting species responses requires understanding how species track environmental change, and how such tracking shapes communities. Growing empirical evidence suggests that how species track phenologically - how an organism shifts the timing of major biological events in response to the environment - is linked to species performance and community structure. Such research tantalizingly suggests a potential framework to predict the winners and losers of climate change, and the future communities we can expect. But developing this framework requires far greater efforts to ground empirical studies of phenological tracking in relevant ecological theory. Here we review the concept of phenological tracking in empirical studies and through the lens of coexistence theory to show why a community-level perspective is critical to accurate predictions with climate change. While much current theory for tracking ignores the importance of a multi-species context, basic community assembly theory predicts that competition will drive variation in tracking and trade-offs with other traits. We highlight how existing community assembly theory can help understand tracking in stationary and non-stationary systems. But major advances in predicting the species- and community-level consequences of climate change will require advances in theoretical and empirical studies. We outline a path forward built on greater efforts to integrate priority effects into modern coexistence theory, improved empirical estimates of multivariate environmental change, and clearly defined estimates of phenological tracking and its underlying environmental cues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".