Effects of insects on primary production in temperate herbaceous communities: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. The effects of insects on primary production in temperate herbaceous communities were investigated in a meta‐analysis. The following hypotheses were tested: (1) the effect of insects on primary production depends on community type, (2) the effect of insects on primary production varies as a function of productivity, (3) insects have a greater effect on primary production in communities with low species diversity, and (4) insects have a larger effect on primary production during outbreaks. 2. Data were collected from 24 studies in which insecticides were used to suppress insects in self‐sown or pastoral communities. Effect sizes were calculated from sprayed and control plot standing crop or yield, expressed as the log response ratio, ln (sprayed plot phytomass/control plot phytomass). 3. There was a significant increase in primary production as a result of insect suppression. Forb‐dominated communities showed a more variable response than graminoid communities. During outbreaks, insects had a greater negative impact on primary production. Effect size was unaffected by productivity or plant species richness. 4. Although insects lower primary production in a diversity of temperate herbaceous communities, the basic measures by which such communities are often described have little effect on the proportional impact that insects have on primary production. While outbreaks are significant predictors of higher negative impact on primary production, causes of outbreaks are not always related to traits of the plant community.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".