Fragment size affects plant herbivory via predator loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fragmentation and resultant changes in patch size are predicted to alter species diversity and community composition, yet the consequences of these differences for species interactions are poorly understood. Theory predicts that predators are more sensitive to fragmentation than their prey, resulting in greater predator loss in small patches. Predator loss, in turn, is predicted to 1) increase herbivory rates overall, and 2) cause herbivores to shift feeding from plants that act as refugia to those that are preferred forage. We tested these predictions in an old‐field community using two experiments. The first was a large‐scale experiment that included hundreds of arthropod species in fragments of various sizes, and used goldenrod and switchgrass to assess herbivory. Our second experiment manipulated densities of a focal predator species and a focal prey species to determine if changes in densities, rather than other characteristics of fragments, were sufficient to cause the trends observed in the first experiment. We found that predator densities declined in small fragments whereas herbivore densities showed the opposite trend. Total herbivory mirrored herbivore densities by increasing in small patches, and this mean increase was driven by large increases in goldenrod herbivory but declines in switchgrass herbivory. Experimental manipulation of densities confirmed that herbivores preferentially feed on goldenrod, and that predators depress herbivory on goldenrod but have a negligible effect on switchgrass. Our results suggest that fragmentation alters trophic interactions by causing declines in predator densities and increases in herbivore densities, but that feeding preferences of herbivores may generate unequal impacts among plant species.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".