Data from: Flowering time of butterfly nectar food plants is more sensitive to temperature than the timing of butterfly adult flight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract1. Variation among species in their phenological responses to temperature change suggests that shifts in the relative timing of key life cycle events between interacting species are likely to occur under climate warming. However, it remains difficult to predict the prevalence and magnitude of these shifts given that there have been few comparisons of phenological sensitivities to temperature across interacting species. 2. Here, we used a broad-scale approach utilizing collection records to compare the temperature sensitivity of the timing of adult flight in butterflies vs. flowering of their potential nectar food plants (days per °C) across space and time in British Columbia, Canada. 3. On average, the phenology of both butterflies and plants advanced in response to warmer temperatures. However, the two taxa were differentially sensitive to temperature across space vs. across time, indicating the additional importance of nontemperature cues and/or local adaptation for many species. 4. Across butterfly–plant associations, flowering time was significantly more sensitive to temperature than the timing of butterfly flight and these sensitivities were not correlated. 4. Our results indicate that warming-driven shifts in the relative timing of life cycle events between butterflies and plants are likely to be prevalent, but that predicting the magnitude and direction of such changes in particular cases is going to require detailed, fine-scale data.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
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".