Growing degree‐days do not explain moth species' distributions at broad scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Growing degree‐days (GDD), an estimate of an organism's growing season length, has been shown to be an important predictor of Lepidopteran species' distributions and could be influencing Lepidopteran range shifts to climate change. Yet, one understudied simplification in this literature is that the same thermal threshold is used in the calculations of GDD for all species instead of a species‐specific threshold. By characterizing the phenological process influenced by climate, a species‐specific estimate of GDD should improve the accuracy of species distribution models (SDMs). To test this hypothesis, we used published, experimentally estimated thermal thresholds and modeled the current geographic distribution of 30 moth species native to North America. We found that the predictive performance of models based on a species‐specific estimate of GDD was indistinguishable from models based on a standard estimate of GDD. This is likely because GDD was not an important predictor of these species' distributions. Our findings suggest that experimentally estimated thermal thresholds may not always scale up to be predictive at broad scales and that more work is needed to leverage the data from lab experiments into SDMs to accurately predict species' range shifts in response to climate change.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".