MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361269086 · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.14329

Experimental designs for testing the interactive effects of temperature and light in ecology: The problem of periodicity

2023· article· en· W4361269086 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. Buonaiuto, Megan J. Donahue, E. M. Wolkovich

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsWestern Forest ProductsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenologyBiologyInferencephotoperiodismEcologyForcing (mathematics)Sensory cuePredictabilityStatisticsComputer scienceAtmospheric sciencesArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Temperature and light cues interact to control many biological processes. Experiments give researchers the ability to manipulate these environmental cues independently and can be designed to robustly quantify their individual and interactive effects on any particular biological activity. Such experiments have produced important insights into the environmental controls on numerous biological processes in both plant and animal taxa across terrestrial and aquatic environments. Testing the interactive effects of multiple environmental cues, however, requires experimental treatments to be fully independent; any unmeasured experimental covariation among treatments can result in incorrect conclusions. Using a database of controlled environment experiments on the spring phenology of woody plants as a case study, we highlight how a common experimental set‐up, designed to parse the interactive effects of temperature and photoperiod on time to budburst, introduces a latent experimental covariation of these treatments by coupling photo‐ and thermoperiodicity. Using data simulations, algebraic corrections and a comparative analysis of published experiments, we demonstrate how this unmeasured experimental covariation biases statistical inference regarding the relative contribution of light and temperature cues to phenological variation. We identify this experimental covariation in more than 40% of published phenology studies that manipulate photoperiod. Our analyses demonstrate that the coupling of thermo‐ and photoperiodicity results in the overestimation of the effect of photoperiod, the underestimation of forcing effects, and misleading conclusions about their interactions on phenology. This may, in part, explain why the significance of photoperiod cues for spring phenology is currently debated in the literature. Accurate forecasting of how varying environmental conditions will impact the dynamics of biological events requires accurately quantifying cue responses. To this end, we present several options for statistical corrections and alternative experimental designs that can provide more robust estimates of the relative effects of temperature and photoperiod on phenology and many other biological processes controlled by temperature and light. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.322
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.322
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207