PreprintCited by 1Insect Utilization and EffectsInsect behavior and control techniquesAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Temporal Trends: Phase-shifted time-series analysis reveals highly correlated reproductive behaviors in the black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae)

Open access
Lemke, Noah B, Li, Chujun, De Smet, Jeroen·2025·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: For those researching reproduction of the black soldier fly (BSF), finding meaningful correlations between mating and downstream reproductive fitness metrics, owing to complex reproductive behavior and physiology, has been challenging. On the one hand, mating is not necessarily deterministic of fertile eggs being produced, since females might lay unfertile eggs both before and after mating. But conversely, the process is not ‘random’ either, since fertility is predicated on the exchange of gametes during mating. To investigate the relationship between mating and other reproductive metrics, a cross-correlation analysis between lagged time series was conducted on data previously collected during a semi-outdoor greenhouse experiment. This process compared the average percent correlation between un-lagged mating with oviposition in traps, oviposition outside traps, total weight of eggs deposited, and hatch rate, which were lagged 0 to 6 days. This revealed that average mating was 97.54% correlated with oviposition in traps lagged by 2 days. For oviposition outside of traps, total egg weights, and hatch rate, these were also ∼71.63% correlated, 60.29% correlated, and 75.16% correlated with mating respectively, which were optimized when the time series were lagged n = 3 days. These trends likely have a biological basis since flies decrease their reproductive activity as they expend energy and senesce, aligning with temporal patterns consistently observed during BSF rearing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2025.08.26.672371

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The temporal pattern of mating appears generally consistent across experiments and is highly correlated (98%) to oviposition events 2-3 days later.

    “Importantly, recent work has shown this temporal pattern appears to generally be consistent across experiments and are highly correlated (98%) to oviposition events 2-3 days later (Lemke, Li, and De Smet 2025).”

    From Beyond the Black Box: Reproductive Strategies of the Black Soldier Fly as a Model for Bridging Evolutionary Biology and Applied Entomology (2026) · cites this paper as Lemke, Li, and De Smet 2025

    The Cross Correlation of Time Series Data section (page unavailable) reports a 97.54% average percent correlation between mating and oviposition in traps at a two-day lag, reasonably rounded to 98%. But oviposition outside traps reached only about 72% at a three-day lag. The analysis used two trials from one experiment, so it does not establish that the 98% relationship is consistent across experiments. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sharma K, Gold M, Zurbruegg C, et al. 2020. HistoNet: Predicting size histograms of object instances. In: 2020 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV).
  2. Shuker DM, Simmons LW, editors. 2014. The evolution of insect mating systems. University of Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lemke, N. B., Li, C., & De Smet, J.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Guangzhou Unique Biotechnology, Room 1717, 101 Science Avenue, Huanpu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
  • Research Group for Insect Production and Processing, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems, KU Leuven, Campus Geel, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium
Corresponding author
Lemke, Noah B
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2025-08-31
OpenAlex
W4413856352
Cited by
0
References
46
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
U.S. Fulbright Commission to Belgium-Luxembourg (2025-2026 US Belgium Fulbright Scholar Program)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect Utilization and Effects
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect behavior and control techniques
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
Hermetia illucens, mating behavior, oviposition, reproductive fitness, egg fertility, hatch rate, reproductive aging, insect reproduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review