Abnormal weather drives disease outbreaks in wild and agricultural plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Predicting effects of climate change on plant disease is critical for protecting ecosystems and food production. Climate change could exacerbate plant disease because parasites may be quicker to acclimate and adapt to novel climatic conditions than their hosts due to their smaller body sizes and faster generation times. Here we show how disease pressure responds to the anomalous weather that will increasingly occur with climate change by compiling a global database (5380 plant populations; 437 unique plant–disease combinations; 2,858,795 individual plant–disease samples) of disease incidence in both agricultural and wild plant systems. Because wild plant populations are assumed to be adapted to local climates, we hypothesized that large deviations from historical conditions would increase disease incidence. By contrast, since agricultural plants have been transported globally, we did not expect the historical climate where they are currently grown to be as predictive of disease incidence. Supporting these hypotheses, we found that disease outbreaks tended to occur during periods of warm temperatures in agricultural and cool-climate wild plant systems, but also occurred in warm-adapted wild (but not agricultural) plant systems experiencing anomalously cool weather. Outbreaks were additionally associated with higher rainfall in wild systems, especially those with historically wet climates. Our results suggest that historical climate affects susceptibility to disease for wild plant–disease systems, while warming drives risks for agricultural plant disease outbreaks regardless of historical climate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".