Canopy cover mediates interactions between a specialist caterpillar and seedlings of a neotropical tree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 Light availability may be crucial for understanding dynamics of plant–herbivore interactions in temperate and tropical forest communities. This is because local light availability can influence both tree seedling tolerance and susceptibility to herbivory – yet how they mediate levels of insect herbivory that vary with the density of host population is virtually unknown. Here we tested predictions of three key, non-mutually exclusive hypotheses of plant–herbivore interactions: the Limiting Resource Model (LRM), the Plant Vigour Hypothesis (PVH), and the Janzen-Connell Mechanism (JCM). 2 In an Amazonian forest, we planted Swietenia macrophylla seedlings (c. 5 months old) into natural canopy gaps and the shaded understorey and simulated the damage patterns of the specialist herbivore moth, Steniscadia poliophaea, by clipping seedling leaves. Over the next 8 months, we monitored seedling performance in terms of growth and survivorship and also quantified herbivory to new young leaves on a seasonal basis. 3 In support of the LRM, severe leaf damage (≥ 50%) was lethal for Swietenia macrophylla seedlings in the understorey, but in gaps only reduced seedling growth. In support of the PVH, gap seedlings suffered greater post-simulated herbivory (up to 100% defoliation) by S. poliophaea caterpillars than their understorey counterparts. 4 Adding a novel dimension to the Janzen–Connell hypothesis, we found that early wet season herbivory of seedlings in gaps increased with conspecific adult density within a 125-m radius; whereas in the understorey only those seedlings within 50 m of a Swietenia tree were attacked by caterpillars. 5 Synthesis. These results suggest lepidopterans that need young leaves for food may forage more widely in forests to find seedlings in light-rich canopy gaps. Moths may achieve this successfully by being first attracted to gaps, and then searching within them for suitable hosts. A conceptual model, integrating conspecific adult tree density with light-driven changes in seedling tolerance/vigour and their susceptibility to herbivory and mortality, is presented. Spatial variation in the light available to tree seedlings often affects their tolerance and vigour, which may have important consequences for leaf-chewing insects and the scale of density-dependent herbivory in forests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".