Related herbivore species show similar temporal dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within natural communities, different taxa display different dynamics in time. Why this is the case we do not fully know. This thwarts our ability to predict changes in community structure, which is important for both the conservation of rare species in natural communities and for the prediction of pest outbreaks in agriculture. Species sharing phylogeny, natural enemies and/or life-history traits have been hypothesized to share similar temporal dynamics. We operationalized these concepts into testing whether feeding guild, voltinism, similarity in parasitoid community and/or phylogenetic relatedness explained similarities in temporal dynamics among herbivorous community members. Focusing on two similar datasets from different geographical regions (Finland and Japan), we used asymmetric eigenvector maps as temporal variables to characterize species- and community-level dynamics of specialist insect herbivores on oak (Quercus). We then assessed whether feeding guild, voltinism, similarity in parasitoid community and/or phylogenetic relatedness explained similarities in temporal dynamics among taxa. Species-specific temporal dynamics varied widely, ranging from directional decline or increase to more complex patterns. Phylogeny was a clear predictor of similarity in temporal dynamics at the Finnish site, whereas for the Japanese site, the data were uninformative regarding a phylogenetic imprint. Voltinism, feeding guild and parasitoid overlap explained little variation at either location. Despite the rapid temporal dynamics observed at the level of individual species, these changes did not translate into any consistent temporal changes at the community level in either Finland or Japan. Overall, our findings offer no direct support for the notion that species sharing natural enemies and/or life-history traits would be characterized by similar temporal dynamics, but reveal a strong imprint of phylogenetic relatedness. As this phylogenetic signal cannot be attributed to guild, voltinism or parasitoids, it will likely derive from shared microhabitat, microclimate, anatomy, physiology or behaviour. This has important implications for predicting insect outbreaks and for informing insect conservation. We hope that future studies will assess the generality of our findings across plant-feeding insect communities and beyond, and establish the more precise mechanism(s) underlying the phylogenetic imprint.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".