TABLE 4.

Eight candidate models explaining the development rate in each stage of S. rubrovittatus and T. caelestialium and their information‐theoretic statistics

Model	Variables included in the model			Egg		Nymph		Preoviposition a
				AICc	ΔAICc b	AICc	ΔAICc b	AICc	ΔAICc b
S. rubrovittatus
1	Temperature	Population (Tohoku, Shiga, vs. Hiroshima)		−106.5	5.47	−109.9	0.00	−42.5	1.76
2	Temperature	Population (Tohoku, Shiga, vs. Hiroshima)	Their interaction	−99.9	11.99	−107.2	2.70	−42.3	1.96
3	Temperature	Population (Tohoku‐Shiga vs. Hiroshima)		−110.8	1.16	−105.8	4.05	−	−
4	Temperature	Population (Tohoku‐Shiga vs. Hiroshima)	Their interaction	−111.9	0.00	−103.2	6.71	−	−
5	Temperature	Population (Tohoku vs. Shiga‐Hiroshima)		−99.5	12.38	−104.5	5.33	−	−
6	Temperature	Population (Tohoku vs. Shiga‐Hiroshima)	Their interaction	−95.8	16.17	−104.1	5.78	−	−
7	Temperature			−100.9	11.04	−96.1	13.81	−44.29	0.00
8	Intercept only			−50.3	61.58	−65.7	44.21	−22.32	21.96
T. caelestialium
1	Temperature	Population (Hokkaido, Tohoku, vs. Niigata)		−79.66	2.98	−74.36	21.83	−42.02	28.06
2	Temperature	Population (Hokkaido, Tohoku, vs. Niigata)	Their interaction	−74.78	7.86	−81.58	14.62	−62.46	7.63
3	Temperature	Population (Hokkaido vs. Touhoku‐Niigata)		−81.38	1.26	−79.51	16.69	−46.65	23.44
4	Temperature	Population (Hokkaido vs. Touhoku‐Niigata)	Their interaction	−82.64	0.00	−96.19	0.00	−70.09	0.00
5	Temperature	Population (Hokkaido‐Tohoku vs. Niigata)		−80.43	2.21	−77.53	18.66	−37.67	32.41
6	Temperature	Population (Hokkaido‐Tohoku vs. Niigata)	Their interaction	−75.82	6.82	−76.14	20.05	−33.77	36.31
7	Temperature			−77.80	4.84	−80.12	16.07	−38.99	31.09
8	Intercept only			37.78	120.42	−52.99	43.20	−21.29	48.80

^a No data was available from Hayashi (1991).

^b ΔAICc is the difference between the AICcs of a focal model and that of the model having the lowest AICc.