Leaf and Flower Phenology of Woody Plant Species at Harvard Forest and Southern Quebec 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate predictions of spring plant phenology with climate change are critical for projections of growing seasons, plant communities and a number of ecosystem services, including carbon storage. Progress towards prediction, however, has been slow because the major cues known to drive phenology – temperature (including winter chilling and spring forcing) and photoperiod – generally covary in nature and may interact, making accurate predictions of plant responses to climate change complex and nonlinear. Alternatively, recent work suggests many species may be dominated by one cue, which would make predictions much simpler. Here, we manipulated all three cues across 28 woody species from two North American forests. Study sites were Harvard Forest and St. Hipplolyte, Quebec. Species were selected for this study based on their prevalence at the study sites; 28 species are included in this study. At each site, multiple cuttings of six or more representative individuals were collected. In total, we tracked the phenology of 2,137 cuttings from 275 individual source plants. All species responded to all cues examined. Chilling exerted a strong effect, especially on budburst (-15.8 d), with responses to forcing and photoperiod greatest for leafout (-19.1 and -11.2 d, respectively). Interactions between chilling and forcing suggest that each cue may compensate somewhat for the other. Cues varied across species, leading to staggered leafout within each community and supporting the idea that phenology is a critical aspect of species’ temporal niches. Our results suggest that predicting the spring phenology of communities will be difficult, as all species we studied could have complex, nonlinear responses to future warming.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".