Relative importance of consumptive and non‐consumptive effects of predators on prey and plant damage: the influence of herbivore ontogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The non‐consumptive (or trait‐mediated) effects of predators on prey are known to contribute substantially to the negative impact of insect predators on herbivorous insects. Our goal now is to understand what factors alter the relative importance of the consumptive (or density‐mediated) and non‐consumptive components of the total predator impact. This is important both for understanding the effects of predators in natural systems as well as for successfully manipulating predators for biological control in agriculture. In this study, we tested whether herbivore ontogeny influenced the contribution of consumptive and non‐consumptive effects of a predator on herbivore survivorship and plant damage by the herbivores. We addressed these questions using the native plant Solanum ptychanthum Dunal (Solanaceae), the predator Podisus maculiventris Say (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae), and first‐, third‐, and fourth‐instar Manduca sexta L. (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). In field cage experiments, we found that first‐ and third‐instar M. sexta were more vulnerable to predators compared to fourth instars. In the presence of predators, M. sexta caterpillars spent less time on feeding compared to caterpillars in the absence of predators. The amount of damage the plants received was reduced in the presence of the predator and the consumptive and non‐consumptive components contributed approximately equally to this reduction. Thus, the non‐consumptive component of the predator is important for all of the herbivore stages vulnerable to predation in our study. We conclude with a discussion of possible implications of considering non‐consumptive effects of predators in biological control of agricultural pests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".