MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555310286 · doi:10.1007/s10144-016-0564-z

Developmental synchrony in multivoltine insects: generation separation versus smearing

2016· article· en· W2555310286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVoltinismBiologyEcologyPopulation cycleFecundityDevelopmental plasticityPopulationBiomeEvolutionary biologyPlasticityLarvaEcosystemDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many insect species undergo multiple generations each year. They are found across biomes that vary in their strength of seasonality and, depending on location and species, can display a wide range of population dynamics. Some species exhibit cycles with distinct generations (developmental synchrony/generation separation), some exhibit overlapping generations with multiple life stages present simultaneously (generation smearing), while others have intermediate dynamics with early season separation followed by late season smearing. There are two main hypotheses to explain these dynamics. The first is the ‘seasonal disturbance’ hypothesis where winter synchronizes the developmental clock among individuals, which causes transient generation separation early in the season that erodes through the summer. The second is the ‘temperature destabilization’ hypothesis where warm temperatures during the summer cause population dynamics to become unstable giving rise to single generation cycles. Both hypotheses are supported by detailed mathematical theory incorporating mechanisms that are likely to drive dynamics in nature. In this review, we synthesize the theory and propose a conceptual framework—where each mechanism may be seen as an independent axis shaping the developmental (a)synchrony—that allows us to predict dynamic patterns from insect life‐history characteristics. High fecundity, short adult life‐span and strong seasonality enhance synchrony, while developmental plasticity and environmental heterogeneity erode synchrony. We further review current mathematical and statistical tools to study multi‐generational dynamics and illustrate using case studies of multivoltine tortrix moths. By integrating two disparate bodies of theory, we articulate a deep connection among temperature, stability, developmental synchrony and inter‐generational dynamics of multivoltine insects that is missing in current literature.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it