MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197777807 · doi:10.1139/as-2020-0044

Onset of autumn senescence in High Arctic plants shows similar patterns in natural and experimental snow depth gradients

2021· article· en· W3197777807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Friederike Gehrmann, Camille Ziegler, Elisabeth J. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådUmeå UniversitetHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsSnowmeltSenescenceGrowing seasonArcticPhenologySnowBiologyArctic vegetationFreezing toleranceGlobal warmingSubarctic climateClimate changeEnvironmental scienceEcologyTundraGeographyMeteorologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicted changes in snow cover and temperature raise uncertainties about how the beginning and the end of the growing season will shift for Arctic plants. Snowmelt timing and temperature are known to affect the timing of bud burst, but their effects on autumn senescence are less clear. To address this, researchers have examined senescence under natural and experimental environmental gradients. However, these approaches address different aspects of plant responses and the extent to which they can be compared is poorly understood. In this study, we show that the effect of snowmelt timing on the timing of autumn senescence in High Arctic plants is the same between a natural and an experimental gradient in three out of four studied species. While the two approaches mostly produce comparable results, they give in combination greater insight into the phenological responses to predicted climate changes. We also showed that a short warming treatment in autumn delayed senescence by 3.5 days in Dryas octopetala L., which is a 10% extension of the growing season end for this species. Warming treatments have commonly been applied to the whole growing season, but here we show that even isolated autumn warming can be sufficient to affect plant senescence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207