Generation Separation in Simple Structured Life Cycles: Models and 48 Years of Field Data on a Tea Tortrix Moth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population cycles have fascinated ecologists since the early nineteenth century, and the dynamics of insect populations have been central to understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic biological processes responsible for these cycles. We analyzed an extraordinary long-term data set (every 5 days for 48 years) of a tea tortrix moth (Adoxophyes honmai) that exhibits two dominant cycles: an annual cycle with a conspicuous pattern of four or five single-generation cycles superimposed on it. General theory offers several candidate mechanisms for generation cycles. To evaluate these, we construct and parameterize a series of temperature-dependent, stage-structured models that include intraspecific competition, parasitism, mate-finding Allee effects, and adult senescence, all in the context of a seasonal environment. By comparing the observed dynamics with predictions from the models, we find that even weak larval competition in the presence of seasonal temperature forcing predicts the two cycles accurately. None of the other mechanisms predicts the dynamics. Detailed dissection of the results shows that a short reproductive life span and differential winter mortality among stages are the additional life-cycle characteristics that permit the sustained cycles. Our general modeling approach is applicable to a wide range of organisms with temperature-dependent life histories and is likely to prove particularly useful in temperate systems where insect pest outbreaks are both density and temperature dependent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".