Photoperiodic Insensitivity of Temperature-Dependent Development in Some Chrysomeloid Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, Megalopodidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Temperature and photoperiod are among the major abiotic factors that control all the aspects of insect life histories, especially in temperate climates. Oftentimes, an insect is sensitive not to each of these two factors separately but rather to their joint action on the organism. For example, photoperiod can modify thermal reaction norms for development and body size, i.e., it does not simply change the average values of these traits but affects the very pattern of their temperature-dependence. Identification of such interactive effects requires a dedicated experimental design in which insects are being reared under various combinations of temperature and day length. However, in some insect species coming from seasonal climates, active development and growth seem to be insensitive to photoperiod over the whole nonstressful temperature range. Here, we analyze and summarize the results of our laboratory experiments with four phytophagous chrysomeloid beetles: Chrysolina hudsonica from Canadian forest-tundra, Zeugophora subspinosa from urban greenbelts of St. Petersburg, Chrysomela populi from Bryansk forests of southwestern Russia, and Cassida vittata from Moroccan sugar beet plantations. These beetles differ in their seasonal occurrence, host plant preferences, and thermal phenotypes, and experience natural variation in daylength throughout their developmental period in the field. Nevertheless, under experimental conditions, their survivorship, developmental rate and body mass at maturity turn out to be insensitive or extremely weakly sensitive to photoperiod. Such counterexamples provide a key to better understanding how insect life histories evolve in seasonal climates. We conclude by discussing the possible causes of the discovered photoperiodic insensitivity and some nontrivial implications of our findings for future research.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".