Heating tolerance of ectotherms is explained by temperature’s non-linear influence on biological rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The capacity of ectotherms to adjust their thermal tolerance limits through evolution or acclimation seems relatively modest and highly variable, and we lack satisfying explanations for both findings given a limited understanding of what ultimately determines an organism’s thermal tolerance. Here, we test if the amount of heating an ectotherm tolerates throughout a heating event until organismal failure scales with temperature’s non-linear influence on biological rates. To account for the non-linear influence of temperature on biological rates on heating tolerance, we rescaled the duration of heating events of 316 ectothermic taxa acclimated to different temperatures and describe the biological rate-corrected heating duration. This rescaling reveals that the capacity of an organism to resist a heating event is in fact remarkably constant across any acclimation temperature, enabling high-precision estimates of how organismal thermal tolerance limits vary under different thermal regimes. We also find that faster heating consistently reduces biological rate-corrected heating durations, which helps further explain why thermal tolerance limits seem so variable on absolute temperature scales. Existing paradigms are that heating tolerances and thermal tolerance limits reflect incomplete metabolic compensatory responses, are constrained by evolutionary conservatism, or index failure of systems such as membrane function; our data provide a different perspective and show that an organism’s thermal tolerance emerges from the interaction between the non-linear thermal dependence of biological rates and heating durations, which is an approximately-fixed property of a species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".