Behavioral responses to environmental change alter direct and indirect trait-mediated interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a field-based experiment to explore the consequences of altered environmental conditions on a predator–prey–resource system. The foraging choices of grasshoppers on plant resources were measured in the presence and absence of predator spiders and in shaded and unshaded conditions. We show that shading conditions affected the spiders, their direct behavioral interactions with the grasshoppers, and the indirect behaviorally mediated interactions between the spiders and the plants. In unshaded conditions in response to spiders, grasshoppers reduced their energy intake by 90%, reduced their time spent feeding by 68%, and switched to a largely grass diet that should increase mortality, while in shaded conditions spiders induced no behavioral shift. In no shade, spiders had an indirect positive effect on forb plants as evidenced by a trophic cascade pattern in plant biomass in the one-, two-, and three-trophic-level communities. But in shade, there was no indirect interaction of the spiders on the plants. Our results demonstrate the challenge of predicting the effects of environmental change on complex, real-world ecosystems and highlight the critical need for conducting experimental manipulations in the proper context with full complements of species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".