Plant diversity dynamics over space and time in a warming Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average 1 and plant communities are responding through shifts in species abundance, composition and distribution 2–4 . However, the direction and magnitude of local changes in plant diversity in the Arctic have not been quantified. Using a compilation of 42,234 records of 490 vascular plant species from 2,174 plots across the Arctic, here we quantified temporal changes in species richness and composition through repeat surveys between 1981 and 2022. We also identified the geographical, climatic and biotic drivers behind these changes. We found greater species richness at lower latitudes and warmer sites, but no indication that, on average, species richness had changed directionally over time. However, species turnover was widespread, with 59% of plots gaining and/or losing species. Proportions of species gains and losses were greater where temperatures had increased the most. Shrub expansion, particularly of erect shrubs, was associated with greater species losses and decreasing species richness. Despite changes in plant composition, Arctic plant communities did not become more similar to each other, suggesting no biotic homogenization so far. Overall, Arctic plant communities changed in richness and composition in different directions, with temperature and plant–plant interactions emerging as the main drivers of change. Our findings demonstrate how climate and biotic drivers can act in concert to alter plant composition, which could precede future biodiversity changes that are likely to affect ecosystem function, wildlife habitats and the livelihoods of Arctic peoples 5,6 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".