Peer Review #2 of "A systematic review of the direct and indirect effects of herbivory on plant reproduction mediated by pollination (v0.2)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Plant reproduction is influenced by the net outcome of plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions.While both herbivore impacts and pollinator impacts on plant reproduction have been widely studied, few studies examine them in concert. Methodology.Here, we review the contemporary literature that examines the net outcomes of herbivory and pollination on plant reproduction and the impacts of herbivores on pollination through damage to shared host plants using systematic review tools.The direct or indirect effects of herbivores on floral tissue and reported mechanisms were compiled including the taxonomic breadth of herbivores, plants, and pollinators. Results.A total of 4304 studies were examined producing 61 relevant studies for synthesis that reported both pollinator and herbivore measures.A total of 53% of studies examined the impact of direct damage to floral tissue through partial florivory while 35% of studies also examined the impact of vegetative damage on pollination through folivory, root herbivory, and stem damage.Only 4 studies examined the effects of both direct and indirect damage to pollination outcomes within the same study.Conclusions.It is not unreasonable to assume that plants often sustain simultaneous forms of damage to different tissues and that the net effects can be assessed through differences in reproductive output.Further research that controls for other relative drivers of reproductive output but examines more than one pathway of damage simultaneously will inform our understanding of the mechanistic relevance of herbivore impacts on pollination and also highlight interactions between herbivores and pollinators through plants.It is clear that herbivory can impact plant fitness through pollination; however, the relative importance of direct and indirect damage to floral tissue on plant reproduction is still largely unknown.
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 | 0.040 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.023 |
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".