Flowering time responses to warming drive reproductive fitness in a changing Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Arctic is warming at an alarming rate, leading to earlier spring conditions and plant phenology. It is often unclear to what degree changes in reproductive fitness (flower, fruit and seed production) are a direct response to warming versus an indirect response through shifting phenology. The aim of this study was to quantify the relative importance of these direct and indirect pathways and project the net effects of warming on plant phenology and reproductive fitness under current and future climate scenarios. METHODS: We used two long-term datasets on 12 tundra species in the Canadian Arctic as part of the International Tundra Experiment (ITEX). Phenology and reproductive fitness were recorded annually on tagged individual plants at both Daring Lake, Northwest Territories (64° 52' N, - 111° 35' W) and Alexandra Fiord, Nunavut (78° 49' N, - 75° 48' W). The plant species encompassed a wide taxonomic diversity across a range of plant functional types with circumpolar/boreal distributions. We used hierarchical Bayesian structural equation models to compare the direct and indirect effects of climate warming on phenology and reproductive fitness across species, sites and years. KEY RESULTS: We found that warming, both experimental and ambient, drove earlier flowering across species, which led to higher numbers of flowers and fruits produced, reflecting directional phenotypic selection for earlier flowering phenology. Furthermore, this indirect effect of climate warming mediated through phenology was generally about two to three times stronger than the direct effect of climate on reproductive fitness. Under future climate predictions, individual plants showed a ~2- to 4.5-fold increase in their reproductive fitness (flower counts) with advanced flowering phenology. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, on average, the benefits of early flowering, such as increased development time and subsequent enhanced reproductive fitness, might outweigh its risks. Overall, this work provides important insights into population-level consequences of phenological shifts in a warming Arctic over multi-decadal time scales.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".