Integrating microclimatic variation in phenological responses to climate change: A 28‐year study in a hibernating mammal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phenological shifts associated with directional changes in climate, resulting in earlier spring activities, have been documented in several animal species. However, the extent to which species respond to overall climate change versus local climate variation is rarely studied. In addition, climate data are usually averaged over large spatial scales, even though local heterogeneity in habitats may be high, and species might be more susceptible to changes in local rather than global climate conditions. In this study, we examined the effects of spatiotemporal climate variation and climate change on the phenology of a hibernating mountain rodent, the Columbian ground squirrel ( Urocitellus columbianus ). Over 28 years of research (1992–2019), we studied the relationship between the microclimatic conditions experienced by adult and juvenile ground squirrels from four neighboring meadows, and their dates of emergence from hibernation. We used a microclimate model to calculate microclimate variables (local snow depth, soil temperature, air temperature, wind speed, and humidity) at an hourly scale, a 5‐m spatial resolution, and at animal height on the study sites over 28 years. Emergence dates varied with age and sex, among years, as well as among and within meadows, with some areas averaging up to 10 days earlier emergence dates from hibernation than others. While emergence dates tended to be delayed throughout the study period, long‐term temporal changes and interannual variability in emergence dates differed among meadows and depended on individual age and sex. Dates of hibernation emergence were correlated with local climate variables considered either during hibernation or during the preceding summer. Ground squirrels emerged earlier in years or at locations when/where snow melted earlier (years: all individuals excluding 2‐year‐old males, locations: yearlings and older females), and when the previous summer was less windy (≥3‐year‐old individuals) and more humid (2‐year‐old males). Two‐year‐old male ground squirrels also emerged later in locations where snow depth during winter was higher. Using a microclimate model allowed realistic predictions of phenological responses to climate, highlighting its potential for research on animal responses to abiotic change.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".