Climate change winners and losers among North American bumblebees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mounting evidence suggests that climate change, agricultural intensification and disease are impacting bumblebee health and contributing to species' declines. Identifying how these factors impact insect communities at large spatial and temporal scales is difficult, partly because species may respond in different ways. Further, the necessary data must span large spatial and temporal scales, which usually means they comprise aggregated, presence-only records collected using numerous methods (e.g. diversity surveys, educational collections, citizen-science projects, standardized ecological surveys). Here, we use occupancy models, which explicitly correct for biases in the species observation process, to quantify the effect of changes in temperature, precipitation and floral resources on bumblebee site occupancy over the past 12 decades in North America. We find no evidence of genus-wide declines in site occupancy, but do find that occupancy is strongly related to temperature, and is only weakly related to precipitation or floral resources. We also find that more species are likely to be climate change 'losers' than 'winners' and that this effect is primarily associated with changing temperature. Importantly, all trends were highly species-specific, highlighting that genus or community-wide measures may not reflect diverse species-specific patterns that are critical in guiding allocation of conservation resources.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".