Timing of short‐term drought structures plant–herbivore dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drought is an important stressor that affects plant growth, survival and physiology and, through plant responses, alters plant–herbivore interactions and herbivore population dynamics. Short‐term drought can occur at different times during a growing season, affecting herbivore populations and plants at various stages of development and growth. As phenology influences drought response, drought timing could strongly structure plant–herbivore interactions. We grew common milkweed plants with or without its dominant aphid herbivore, allowing both plants and herbivore populations to develop over time as in a typical growing season. To determine how drought timing affects plants and aphid populations, we applied short‐term (1 week) drought at different times. Plants and aphids were sensitive to drought timing, with a few weeks difference shifting the effects of drought from minimal to causing massive declines in plant growth, plant survival and herbivore population density. Aphid herbivory added to or overrode drought consequences in plants, with different plant fitness components responding distinctly to herbivory. Drought timing also affected whether plant and herbivore responses were parallel or divergent, suggesting that shifts in the seasonal timing of drought have the potential to disrupt plant–herbivore interactions and affect the larger ecological community. Our results show drought timing has important and disparate consequences for herbivores and their host plants and indicates the necessity of considering phenology and timing in assessing drought response.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".