Thermal plasticity in development and diapause strategy in a temperate butterfly across a latitudinal gradient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Trade‐offs among traits are central to life‐history theory and often closely linked to an organism's fitness. Understanding how these trade‐offs vary among populations and across environments is therefore important to more accurately predict species' responses to future climate change. However, the extent to which responses vary across populations remains unknown because few studies investigate intraspecific differences. We performed a full‐factorial split‐brood common garden experiment to test how variation in rearing temperature affects developmental timing and other traits important for survival during diapause in the Glanville fritillary butterfly ( Melitaea cinxia ). Pre‐diapause larvae originating from four regions across a latitudinal cline across Europe were reared at four temperatures (25, 28, 31 and 34°C), and we used a reaction norm approach to test for evidence of genetic differentiation and variation in developmental plasticity across regions. We found clear signs of genetic differentiation in multiple developmental traits, as well as differences in developmental plasticity. Northern larvae entered diapause in the fourth instar when the temperatures were low, whereas southern larvae did so in the fifth instar. As a result, development time is canalized with regards to temperature in northern larvae: due to entering diapause one stage earlier, they develop fast even in the cold, whereas southern larvae always develop slower, especially at low temperatures. As a trade‐off, northern larvae have a lower body mass when reared at cooler temperatures compared to southern larvae, and they show increased plasticity in diapause mass. No clear clinal patterns were found in relative fat content. Our results show that trade‐offs between body size, development time and growth rate can vary within species living across environmental clines, possibly as a consequence of natural selection to local environmental conditions or other genetic constraints. This variation highlights the importance of recognizing the context dependency of relationships between important life‐history traits and their interactions with local environments in predicting species' responses to climate change. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".