A meta‐analytical review of the effects of elevated CO<sub>2</sub> on plant–arthropod interactions highlights the importance of interacting environmental and biological variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We conducted the most extensive meta‐analysis of plant and animal responses to elevated CO 2 to date. We analysed > 5000 data points extracted from 270 papers published between 1979 and 2009. We examined the changes in 19 animal response variables to the main effect of elevated CO 2 . We found strong evidence for significant variation among arthropod orders and feeding guilds, including interactions in the direction of response. We also examined the main effects of elevated CO 2 on: six plant growth and allocation responses, seven primary metabolite responses, eight secondary metabolite responses, and four physical defence responses. We examined these response variable changes under two‐way and three‐way interactions between CO 2 and: soil nitrogen, ambient temperature, drought, light availability, photosynthetic pathway, reproductive system, plant growth rate, plant growth form, tissue type, and nitrogen fixation. In general we found smaller effect sizes for many response variables than have been previously reported. We also found that many of the oft‐reported main effects of CO 2 obscure the presence of significant two‐ and three‐way interactions, which may help better explain the relationships between the response variables and elevated CO 2 . Contents Summary 321 I. Introduction 322 II. Methods 323 III. Herbivore responses to elevated CO 2 328 IV. Plant responses 329 V. Searching for general responses to elevated CO 2 332 VI. Limitations and future studies 334 Acknowledgements 335 References 335
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 | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".