Intraspecific Functional Trait Responses to Experimental Warming Vary With Precipitation and Growth Form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aims Rising ambient air temperatures may have adverse effects on alpine plant communities. To avoid extinction and to mitigate the demographic impacts of climate warming, migration and the ability to adapt become increasingly important. Experimental studies that simulate warming help test the extent and direction of functional adaptation. We ask: (1) To what extent does experimental warming drive intraspecific trait shifts in alpine species? (2) Do these trait responses vary across a precipitation gradient? (3) Do responses vary between forbs and graminoids? Location Alpine grasslands along a precipitation gradient in south‐western Norway. Methods At three alpine sites spanning 1315–3601 mm of annual precipitation, we measured 10 plant functional traits across 17 species of graminoids, perennial forbs and dwarf shrubs. We compared the traits of plants in open‐top warming chambers with those under ambient temperature conditions. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen's d and analysed with respect to precipitation regimes and growth form. Results Plant height generally increased in response to warming across all sites for both growth forms. For other traits, warming effects were context‐dependent and varied among species. At the medium precipitation site, plants showed shifts toward more conservative resource‐use strategies in response to warming, characterised by increased leaf area and leaf dry matter content, along with reduced species leaf area and leaf nitrogen concentration. The enrichment in heavier nitrogen and carbon isotopes with warming is consistent with the expectation that warming selects for individuals with high water‐use efficiency. Forbs generally exhibited stronger but more variable responses to warming than graminoids. Conclusion Warming induces trait shifts in alpine species, but responses depend on local conditions and growth form. Predicting alpine community responses to climate change requires trait‐based approaches and research designs that allow assessing and exploring patterns in both taxonomic and environmental context dependencies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".