Additive and interactive effects of plant genotypic diversity on arthropod communities and plant fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that genetic diversity in plant populations can shape the diversity and abundance of consumer communities. We tested this hypothesis in a field experiment by manipulating patches of Evening Primrose (Oenothera biennis) to contain one, four or eight plant genotypes. We then surveyed 92 species of naturally colonizing arthropods. Genetically diverse plant patches had 18% more arthropod species, and a greater abundance of omnivorous and predacious arthropods, but not herbivores, compared with monocultures. The effects of genotypic diversity on arthropod communities were due to a combination of interactive and additive effects among genotypes within genetically diverse patches. Greater genetic diversity also led to a selective feedback, as mean genotype fitness was 27% higher in diverse patches than in monocultures. A comparison between our results and the literature reveals that genetic diversity and species diversity can have similar qualitative and quantitative effects on arthropod communities. Our findings also illustrate the benefit of preserving genetic variation to conserve species diversity and interactions within multitrophic communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".