Effects of thermal fluctuations on biological processes: A meta-analysis of experiments manipulating thermal variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermal variability is a key driver of ecological processes, affecting organisms and populations across multiple temporal scales. Despite the ubiquity of variation, biologists lack a quantitative synthesis of the observed ecological consequences of thermal variability across a wide range of taxa, phenotypic traits, and experimental designs. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis to investigate how properties of organisms, their experienced thermal regime, and whether thermal variability is experienced in either the past (prior to an assay) or present (during the assay) affect performance, relative to the performance of organisms experiencing constant thermal environments. Our results – which draw upon 1,712 effect sizes from 75 studies – indicate that the effects of thermal variability are not unidirectional and become more negative as mean temperature and fluctuation range increase. Exposure to variation in the past decreases performance to a greater extent than variation experienced in the present and increases the costs to performance more than diminishing benefits across a broad set of empirical studies. Further, we identify life history attributes that predictably modify the ecological response to variation. Our findings demonstrate that effects of thermal variability on performance are context-dependent, yet negative outcomes may be heightened in warmer, more variable climates.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".