Warming the tundra: reciprocal responses of invertebrate herbivores and plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid warming in northern ecosystems is simultaneously influencing plants, herbivores and the interactions among them. Recent studies suggest that herbivory could buffer plant responses to environmental change, but this has only been shown for vertebrate herbivores so far. The role of invertebrate herbivory in tundra ecosystems is often overlooked, but can be relevant in determining the structure and dynamics of tundra plant communities and may also affect how plants respond to warming. Invertebrate herbivores are also likely to respond more rapidly to warming than vertebrates because their behaviour and life cycles strongly depend on temperature. We investigated the effects of current season warming on Arctic moth caterpillars, their herbivory rates, and the subsequent responses of two common tundra plants, Salix arctica and Dryas octopetala . We manipulated both herbivore presence and temperature in a full‐factorial field experiment at two elevations, using enclosures and passive warming chambers. Changes in temperature achieved through elevation and/or experimental warming directly affected caterpillars, herbivory and the responses of plants. Caterpillars performed worse (higher respiration rates and lower growth rates) in warmer, lower elevation plots and shifted their diets towards more nutritious foods, such that the relative intensity of herbivory changed for the two studied plants. Within‐season responses of both forage plant species were weak, but invertebrate herbivores affected the responses of plants to elevation or experimental warming. Our results suggest that increased temperatures can reduce the performance of cold‐adapted invertebrate herbivores, with potential consequences to the longer term responses of tundra plants to warming due to changes in herbivory rates and selective foraging.
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) | 0.003 | 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".