Outside says, "Count the chirps over a 13-second
period and add 40. That'll give the temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit, give or take a bit." The University
of California Extension, however, has a more complicated
formula: "Count the chirps per minute, subtract 40,
divide by 4, add 50 and that will be the temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit." On the other hand,
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, says. "If
the number 40 is added to the number of chirps per
15-sec interval, the sum is a fair approximation of the
temperature in degrees Fahrenheit." (It looks like the
good folks at the UC Extension just like to take a
simple formula and make it obscure; their long-winded
rule is the same as Columbia's!) So while Mr. Cricket
clearly chirps with a temperature-dependent rate, there
seems to be some disagreement as to how to interpret it.
What does Arrhenius say? First, the Arrhenius equation
is a fairly complicated function of temperature. It says
the rate depends on the exponential of a constant
quantity, –Ea/R, divided by the absolute
temperature. The cricketeers propose a simple linear
rate expression (where I've used the Outside
magazine 13 second formula, which gives a better fit
than the 15 second rule):
T/°F = (# chirps per 13
seconds) + 40
or
Rate = Chirps per 13 seconds =
T/°F – 40
Here are some actual data, taken around 1900 and
converted to our units:

The empirical formula (the red line)
does a reasonable job (and is certainly easier to use
than the Arrhenius formula when you're in the great
outdoors without your scientific calculator), but there
is clearly a curvature to the actual data which a linear
formula can't reproduce. If we fit these data to the
Arrhenius equation, however, we get the graph below:

This fit, the
purple line,
does a better job over the full temperature range (which
spans only 13 K -- living things don't do well over
extremely wide ranges of absolute temperature). What's
more, it tells us something about the undoubtedly
complicated, coupled, and largely unknown set of
chemical reactions that generates the chirp in the first
place: the effective activation energy. If this number
turns out to be a chemically reasonable one (something
on the order of a few to a few tens of kJ mol
–1),
then we can have confidence that our physical
interpretation of the chirping mechanism is correct.
The fit equation shown above is: Chirps per 13 seconds = 5.63 x
1010 exp[–(6290 K) / T ]
Note the parameter in the exponential: –6290 K, a
quantity with units of absolute temperature. This
parameter must equal –Ea/R, and with R = 8.31
J mol–1 K–1, we find Ea = 52 kJ mol–1,
a very reasonable number!