Effects of short- and long-term experimental warming on plant–pollinator interactions and floral rewards in the Low Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant phenological and growth responses to experimental warming are widely documented, but less is known about warming effects on plant–pollinator interactions. We investigated the effects of short- and long-term passive warming on flowering phenology, insect visitation, fruit production, and floral rewards in the Low Arctic in northern Alaska. To better understand the role of insect visitors in plant reproductive success, we quantified pollen loads on floral visitors and tested for pollen limitation in four species. Long-term warming advanced flowering onset in evergreen shrubs and forbs. Warming, in general, increased the duration of flowering for forbs, evergreen shrubs, and deciduous shrubs. Considering all growth forms together, long-term warming increased floral density. This pattern was primarily driven by deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Dipterans accounted for more visits than Hymenopterans, although Hymenopterans had higher pollen loads. Insect exclusion and warming decreased fruit set in the forb, Bistorta officinalis Delarbre. Nectar volume in the deciduous shrub, Vaccinium uliginosum, was higher in the warmed plots than the control, but nectar quality did not differ. Advanced flowering onset, longer flowering duration, and increased flower density and nectar volume may have important implications for the pollinator community, warranting further research on long-term warming effects on tundra ecosystems.
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".