Food quality, nutrient limitation of secondary production, and the strength of trophic cascades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent meta‐analyses confirm that the strength of trophic cascades (indirect positive effects of predators on plant biomass through control of herbivores) varies among ecosystem types. In particular, most terrestrial systems show smaller cascades than most aquatic ones. Ecologists still remain challenged to explain this variation. Here, we examine a food quality hypothesis which states that higher quality plants should promote stronger trophic cascades. Food quality involves two components: digestion resistance of plants and magnitude of stoichiometric imbalance between plants and herbivores (where stoichiometry involves ratios of nutrient:carbon ratio of tissues). Both factors vary among ecosystems and could mediate conversion efficiency of plants into new herbivores (and hence control of plants by herbivores). We explored the food quality hypothesis using two models, one assuming that plant stoichiometry is a fixed trait, the other one allowing this trait to vary dynamically (but with a minimal nutrient:carbon ratio of structural mass). Both models produce the same suite of results. First, as expected, systems with more easily digested plants promote stronger cascades. Second, contrary to expectations, higher (fixed or minimal) nutrient:carbon ratio of plants do not promote stronger cascades, largely because of the net result of ecosystem feedbacks. Still, the model with dynamic stoichiometry permits positive correlations of realized plant nutrient:carbon ratio and cascade strength (as predicted), mediated through digestion resistance. Third, lower nutrient:carbon ratio of herbivores promotes stronger cascades. However, this result likely cannot explain variation in cascade strength because nutrient:carbon stoichiometry of herbivores does not vary greatly between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Finally, we found that predation promotes nutrient limitation of herbivores. This finding highlights that food web processes, such as predation, can influence stoichiometry‐mediated interactions of plants and herbivores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".