4.7 Article

Critical thermal limits depend on methodological context

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 274, Issue 1628, Pages 2935-2942

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0985

Keywords

temperature tolerance; phenotypic plasticity; rapid cold-hardening; acclimation rate; lethal limits; survival

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI052456, AI-52456] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A full-factorial study of the effects of rates of temperature change and start temperatures was undertaken for both upper and lower critical thermal limits (CTLs) using the tsetse fly, Glossina pallidipes. Results show that rates of temperature change and start temperatures have highly significant effects on CTLs, although the duration of the experiment also has a major effect. Contrary to a widely held expectation, slower rates of temperature change (i.e. longer experimental duration) resulted in poorer thermal tolerance at both high and low temperatures. Thus, across treatments, a negative relationship existed between duration and upper CTL while a positive relationship existed between duration and lower CTL. Most importantly, for predicting tsetse distribution, G. pallidipes suffer loss of function at less severe temperatures under the most ecologically relevant experimental conditions for upper (0.06 degrees C min(-1); 35 degrees C start temperature) and lower CTL (0.06 degrees C min(-1); 24 degrees C start temperature). This suggests that the functional thermal range of G. pallidipes in the wild may be much narrower than previously suspected, approximately 20-40 degrees C, and highlights their sensitivity to even moderate temperature variation. These effects are explained by limited plasticity of CTLs in this species over short time scales. The results of the present study have broad implications for understanding temperature tolerance in these and other terrestrial arthropods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available