Spatial extent of neighboring plants influences the strength of associational effects on mammal herbivory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is high variability in the level of herbivory between individual plants from the same species with potential effects on population dynamics, community composition, and ecosystem structure and function. This variability can be partly explained by associational effects (i.e., the impact of the presence of neighboring plants on the level of herbivory experienced by a focal plant) but it is still unclear how the spatial scale of plant neighborhood modulates foraging choice of herbivores, an inherently spatial process in itself. Using a meta‐analysis, we investigated how spatial scale modifies associational effects on the susceptibility to browsing by herbivores with movement capacities similar to deer. From 2496 articles found in literature databases, we selected 46 studies providing a total of 168 differences of means in damage by herbivores or survival to woody plants (mostly) with and without neighboring plants. Spatial scales were reported as distance between plants or as plot size. We estimated the relationships between the effect sizes and spatial scale, type of associational effects, and nature of the experiment using meta‐analysis mixed models. The strength of associational effects declined with increasing plot size, regardless of the type of associational effects. Associational defenses (i.e., decrease in herbivory for focal plants associated with unpalatable neighbors) had stronger magnitude than associational susceptibilities. The high remaining heterogeneity among studies suggests that untested factors modulate associational effects, such as nutritional quality of focal and neighboring plants, density of herbivores, timing of browsing, etc. Associational effects are already considered in multiple restoration contexts worldwide, but a better understanding of these relationships could improve their use in conservation, restoration, and forest exploitation when browsing is a concern. This study is the first to investigate spatial patterns of associational effects across species and ecosystems, an issue that is essential to determine differential herbivory damages among plants.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".