Body size explains interspecific variation in size–latitude relationships in geographically widespread beetle species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. In most birds and mammals, larger individuals of the same species tend to be found at higher latitudes, but in insects, body size–latitude relationships are highly variable. 2. Recent studies have shown that larger‐bodied insect species are more likely to decrease in size when reared at increased temperature, compared with smaller‐sized species. These findings have led to the prediction that a positive relationship between body size and latitude should be more prevalent in larger‐bodied insect species. 3. This study measured the body size of > 4000 beetle specimens (12 species) collected throughout North America. Some beetle species increased in size with latitude, while others decreased. Importantly, mean species body size explained c . 30% of the interspecific variation in the size–latitude response. 4. As predicted, larger‐bodied beetle species were more likely to show a positive relationship between body size and latitude (Bergmann's rule), and smaller‐bodied species were more likely to show a negative body size–latitude relationship (inverse Bergmann's rule). 5. These body size–latitude patterns suggest that size‐specific responses to temperature may underlie global latitudinal distributions of body size in Coleoptera, as well as other insects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.163 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".