Evaluating intraspecific variation in insect trait analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraspecific variation plays important roles in ecology and evolution. Yet, information on how species and populations vary remains scarce, particularly for insects and regarding functional traits. This lack of knowledge can be problematic in trait‐based ecology because traditional approaches assume negligible intraspecific variation, even for analyses that assess highly variable taxa. We measured 291 Arctic fritillary butterflies ( Boloria chariclea ) to assess the intraspecific variation in one population of this species, evaluating (i) how wingspan of Arctic fritillaries varies in relation to the other species of its community, and (ii) how well wingspan, a measure of body size, predicts weight, a measure of body mass. Wingspan of Arctic fritillaries varied between 2.62 and 4.07 cm, with the 95% interval range, including ∼33% (14/42) of the species in the community, and ∼30% (84/279) of the butterflies of Canada. The relationship between wingspan and weight was significant ( β wingspan = 0.002, SE = 0.0008, P < 0.001), but relatively weak ( R 2 adj = 0.31, F 2,288 = 67.82, P < 0.001). We discuss our findings in relation to the assumption of species homogeneity and the use of proxies in the analysis of species traits, complementing our case study with simulations to illustrate how intraspecific and interspecific variation interact in determining when traditional trait analyses are robust. We suggest entomologists interested in trait analyses should critically evaluate how intraspecific variation could affect their inference, especially when evaluating species that are highly sexually dimorphic, phenotypically plastic, and/or distributed across broad environmental and spatial clines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.351 | 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; 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".