Data from: Impacts of weather anomalies and climate on plant disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting effects of climate change on plant disease is critical for protecting ecosystems and food production. Here, we show how disease pressure responds to short-term weather, historical climate, and weather anomalies by compiling a global database (4339 plant–disease populations) of disease prevalence in both agricultural and wild plant systems. We hypothesized that weather and climate would play a larger role in disease in wild versus agricultural plant populations, which the results supported. In wild systems, disease prevalence peaked when temperature was 2.7°C warmer than the historical average for the same time of year. We also found evidence of a negative interactive effect between weather anomalies and climate in wild systems, consistent with the idea that climate maladaptation can be an important driver of disease outbreaks. Temperature and precipitation had relatively little explanatory power in agricultural systems, though we observed a significant positive effect of current temperature. These results indicate that disease pressure in wild plants is sensitive to nonlinear effects of weather, weather anomalies, and their interaction with historical climate. In contrast, warmer temperatures drove risks for agricultural plant disease outbreaks within the temperature range examined regardless of historical climate, suggesting vulnerability to ongoing 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.018 |
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".