Like moths to a street lamp: exaggerated animal densities in plot‐level global change field experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many recent field experiments have examined plant responses to global change factors such as climate warming, elevated atmospheric CO 2 , increased nitrogen addition or altered precipitation simulated at the plot level, yet the mechanisms underlying these responses can be difficult to isolate. One concern has been that the infrastructure used in these experiments can restrict the access of influential herbivores, detritivores or pollinators to the plots, and the absence of these animals is confounded with the treatment effects. However, in this paper we describe why free access by animals to experimental plots does not ensure realistic animal densities in response to global change treatments. On the contrary, much like moths swarm around streetlamps, animals that prefer the local conditions in treated plots may congregate at artificially high densities, or conversely, those that are repelled by the treatments may choose to avoid them. Therefore, animal densities or herbivore damage in the plots of global change experiments may grossly exaggerate or underestimate the contributions of animals to primary productivity or plant species composition under future environmental conditions. We describe how these potential animal congregation and avoidance artifacts may have been overlooked in the interpretation of results from many plot‐level global change field experiments. We also provide suggestions for how to best interpret the results of these experiments and how to isolate the effects of animal density artifacts.
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 | 0.000 | 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".