Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Previous article FreeRetractionBenjamin Gilbert and Arthur E. WeisBenjamin GilbertDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S3B2, Canada Search for more articles by this author and Arthur E. WeisDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S3B2, Canada Search for more articles by this author Original articleIndirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food WebPDFPDF PLUSFull TextSupplemental Material Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe article “Indirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food Web,” published in the March 2019 issue (pp. 321–330) of The American Naturalist, is retracted by request of the authors of this statement. This article concerned the impact of a defoliating insect on the size and population density of a goldenrod stem gall and the subsequent influence of mature gall size on attack rates by the parasitoid wasps and predatory birds on the gall-making insect. The authors found several errors in their analyses and have provided a full reanalysis in an R code file.The main error occurred because observations that should have been excluded were accidentally retained, which biased the statistics on selection for gall size. Specifically, some gall-maker larvae die early in development, which not only halts gall growth but also removes those larvae from the pool of hosts/prey. Including such observations in the analysis distorts the relationship of natural enemy attack to mature gall size and the resulting influence of natural enemies on the selection of gall size. The authors’ previous studies of this relationship excluded such observations. Correcting this error in the current study yielded different selection gradients, such that linear selection no longer varied among treatments (interaction P>.1) but nonlinear selection did vary (interaction P<.05). Both of these changes to the statistical results altered inferences about the effects of indirect interactions on selection intensity.There were also two errors in the calculation of how treatment effects influence gall makers. When the density of galls was reanalyzed with a more appropriate error distribution, the difference among treatments changed to marginally significant (P=.086). Similarly, mortality by Eurytoma was erroneously reported as P<.001, and reanalysis showed it to be only marginally significant (P=.098).The extent of the altered results means that much of the discussion section in Start et al. is not valid. The authors of this statement are requesting a retraction of this article but plan to resubmit a thoroughly rewritten article that correctly reports and interprets the revised results. Previous article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 198, Number 4October 2021 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/715870 Views: 2663 HistorySubmitted June 04, 2021Published online August 12, 2021 © 2021 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.Related articlesIndirect Interactions Shape Selection in a Multispecies Food Web17 Jan 2019The American Naturalist
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».