Developmental variation in the forest tent caterpillar: life history consequences of a threshold size for pupation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In insects, size and age at adult emergence depend on larval growth that occurs in discrete steps or instars. Understanding the mechanisms controlling stepwise larval growth and the onset of metamorphosis is essential to the study of insect life history. We examined the patterns of growth of forest tent caterpillars Malacosoma disstria to quantify variation in the number of instars that larvae undergo before pupation, to identify the mechanisms underlying variation in larval development, and to evaluate the life history consequences of this variation. All caterpillars were reared under the same conditions; at each molt, the date, the head capsule width and the mass of the freshly molted insect were recorded. Logistic regression analysis showed that a threshold size (measured either as mass or head capsule width) must be reached at the beginning of a stadium for pupation to occur at the next molt. This threshold size was higher for females than for males, and as a result, females attained a higher pupal mass than males. To achieve this larger size, females often required more instars than males, despite a higher growth ratio (size increase within an instar). Within each sex, slow growing individuals exhibited more larval instars and longer larval development time, but attained the same pupal mass as faster growing individuals. The combination of a threshold size for pupation, discrete growth steps and variation in the number of these steps can thus complicate relationships between growth rate, pupal mass and larval development time. In our study, growth ratio and number of instars were correlated with development time but not with pupal mass, and no relationship was observed between development time and pupal mass. These findings imply that, in species with variable instar number, one cannot extrapolate overall larval growth from growth during a single instar. Given the constraints of discrete larval growth, variation in instar number provides greater flexibility for insects to compensate for poor growing conditions. In this case, inferior larval growth conditions don't necessarily lead to smaller adult size.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".