Contemporary Evolution of Plant Growth Rate Following Experimental Removal of Herbivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbivores are credited with driving the evolutionary diversification of plant defensive strategies over macroevolutionary time. For this to be true, herbivores must also cause short-term evolution within plant populations, but few studies have experimentally tested this prediction. We addressed this gap using a long-term manipulative field experiment where exclosures protected 22 plant populations from natural rabbit herbivory for <1 to 26 years. We collected seeds of Rumex acetosa L. (Polygonaceae) from our plots and grew them in a common greenhouse environment to quantify evolved differences among populations in individual plant growth rate, tolerance to herbivory, competitive ability, and the concentration of secondary metabolites (tannins and oxalate) implicated in defense against herbivores. In 26 years without rabbit herbivory, plant growth rate decreased linearly by 30%. We argue that plant growth rate has evolved as a defense against intense rabbit herbivory. In contrast, we found no change in tolerance to herbivory or concentrations of secondary metabolites. We also found no change in competitive ability, suggesting that contemporary evolution may not feed back to alter ecological interactions within this plant community. Our results combined with those of other studies show that the evolution of gross morphological traits such as growth rate in response to herbivory may be common, which calls into question assumptions about some of the most popular theories of plant defense.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".