Changes in Body Size With Age Do Not Follow the Temperature‐Size Rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim The temperature‐size rule is often described as a reduction in ectothermic asymptotic or maximum body size with warming. Although this coincides with the expectation that faster growth under warming would lead to larger sizes early in life but smaller sizes later in life, there remain few tests of changes in size across ontogeny. Here, we use > 99,000 observations of weight‐at‐age of commercially important fishes over 25 years to ask whether changes in size across ontogeny can be explained by temperature. We also examine whether oxygen, a key part of a proposed mechanism behind the temperature‐size rule, explains patterns of weight‐at‐age better than temperature. Understanding how temperature and oxygen affect size across age offers a test of macroecological theory and can inform the future productivity of fisheries. Location Bering Sea, largest subarctic system (Latitude: 52° N–66° N, Longitude: 160° E–170° W). Time Period 1987–2023. Major Taxa Studied Commercially important fishes. Methods We coupled fisheries‐independent survey data and climate model output with spatiotemporal generalised linear mixed‐effects models, a novel framework for testing the temperature‐size rule. These models account for uneven sampling across space and time to assess long‐term trends, as well as the effects of temperature and oxygen on size across age. We additionally explore the effect of model structure on our results by comparing functional forms and how spatial and/or spatiotemporal random effects are included. Results Weight‐at‐age was variable over time for all species with no long‐term trend. Temperature better explained this variability than oxygen, but effects were small and not age‐specific, counter to the temperature‐size rule. Our results were sensitive to model structure as models with shared spatial effects across ages appeared to support temperature‐size rule predictions, but this support reflected spatial autocorrelation in size rather than age‐specific temperature responses. Collectively, this work shows that support for the temperature‐size rule in these fishes was an artifact of spatial patterns in size and growth. Main Conclusions Our work tests macroecological theory using nearly complete body size trajectories to understand not only changes in adult stages but how size changes across age. We highlight that relationships among size, growth, temperature, and oxygen are not as straightforward as theory suggests and illustrate that modelling decisions can have a large effect on tests of ecological theory, and more broadly, our ability to understand biological responses 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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".