Is Diet Quality an Overlooked Mechanism for Bergmann’s Rule?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bergmann's rule (body size increases with latitude) has long interested biologists; however, its mechanism remains unclear. An overlooked mechanism (latitudinal variation in plant quality) might help explain Bergmann's rule. We studied three herbivores. In the field, the planthopper Prokelisia and the sea hare Aplysia, but not the long-horned grasshopper Orchelimum, were larger at high latitudes, following Bergmann's rule. In the laboratory, all three species grew larger or faster on high-latitude plants. High-latitude diets increased Prokelisia size and Aplysia growth rates by 8% and 72%, respectively, enough to explain the increase in field body size toward high latitudes. Therefore, latitudinal variation in herbivore body size could be influenced by latitudinal variation in plant quality, which may directly or indirectly also affect body size in detritivores, parasitoids, and predators. Studies of Bergmann's rule should consider the influence of biotic factors on body size in addition to abiotic factors such as temperature and precipitation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".