Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apparent feeding damage by insects on plants is often slight. Thus, the influences of insect herbivores on plant populations are likely minor. The role of insects on host-plant populations can be elucidated via several methods: stage-structured life tables of plant populations manipulated by herbivore exclusion and seed-addition experiments, tests of the enemy release hypothesis, studies of the effects of accidentally and intentionally introduced insect herbivores, and observations of the impacts of insect species that show outbreak population dynamics. These approaches demonstrate that some, but not all, insect herbivores influence plant population densities. At times, insect-feeding damage kills plants, but more often, it reduces plant size, growth, and seed production. Plant populations for which seed germination is site limited will not respond at the population level to reduced seed production. Insect herbivores can influence rare plant species and need to be considered in conservation programs. Alterations due to climate change in the distributions of insect herbivores indicate the possibility of new influences on host plants. Long-term studies are required to show if density-related insect behavior stabilizes plant populations or if environmental variation drives most temporal fluctuations in plant densities. Finally, insects can influence plant populations and communities through changing the diversity of nonhost species, modifying nutrient fluxes, and rejuvenating over mature 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".