MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013896048 · doi:10.1086/420980

Plant Defense and Density Dependence in the Population Growth of Herbivores

2004· article· en· W2013896048 on OpenAlexaff
Anurag A. Agrawal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbivoreAphidTrichomeBiologyDensity dependencePopulationBotanyPopulation densityEcologyInsect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-standing theory has predicted that plant defensive and nutritional traits contribute to the population dynamics of insect herbivores. To examine the role of plant variation in density dependence, I took a comparative approach by conducting density manipulation experiments with the specialist aphid, Aphis nerii, on 18 species of milkweed (Asclepias spp.). The strength of density dependence varied on the plant species. Variation in plant secondary compounds (cardenolides), trichomes, leaf carbon and nitrogen concentrations, and seed mass of the milkweed species predicted the R(max) of aphid populations, while specific leaf weight, carbon concentration, latex, water content, and trichome density were significant predictors of the strength of density dependence. Thus, plant traits that probably evolved for primary and defensive functions contribute to the ecological dynamics of herbivore populations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations141
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207