Latitudinal gradients in herbivory on<i>Oenothera biennis</i>vary according to herbivore guild and specialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The latitudinal herbivory‐defense hypothesis (LHDH) posits that herbivory and plant defenses increase toward lower latitudes. Recent studies provide contradictory evidence and suggest alternative explanations for biogeographic patterns in plant–herbivore interactions. Here we test the LHDH by sampling herbivory from multiple generalist and specialist insect herbivores over the entire latitudinal native range of the plant species Oenothera biennis L . (Onagraceae). We sampled 79 populations on a 16° north‐south gradient from Ontario and Maine to Alabama and Florida. From each population, we quantified herbivory across feeding guilds by considering leaf herbivory caused by generalist insects, damage by a specialist stem‐boring beetle, and flower/seed herbivory by three Lepidoptera that specialize on Oenothera . We also related environmental and population density variables to herbivory. Our results show that latitudinal patterns vary dramatically among herbivore species. While generalist leaf herbivory showed no latitudinal pattern, stem borer damage increased with decreasing latitude. By contrast, the specialist flower/seed herbivores all caused less damage at lower latitudes. Temperature explained slightly more variation in herbivory than latitude, while precipitation and population density were less important. Overall, we show that every pattern of herbivory (positive, negative and no relationship) is possible across a latitudinal gradient, and this variation depends on the insects' degree of specialization and feeding guild.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".