MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415241059 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcaf258

The effect of herbivory on pollinators: a revisited meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4415241059 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Haas-Desmarais, Bastien Castagneyrol, Luis Abdala‐Roberts, Christopher J. Lortie, Anna Traveset, Xoaquín Moreira

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAxencia Galega de InnovaciónNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónYork University
KeywordsHerbivoreBiological evolutionEvolutionary ecologyEctothermCoevolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions are closely interconnected through their combined influence on plant reproduction, involving both direct and indirect (plant-mediated) effects between these consumer groups. Although these dynamics have been investigated for nearly three decades and were previously synthesized in a meta-analysis, rapid growth in the field in recent years warrants an updated quantitative assessment. METHODS: We extend the most recent synthesis by incorporating primary studies published between 2018 and 2023, nearly doubling the dataset from 88 to 171 studies and increasing the number of independent observations from 568 to 1348. We reanalysed the effects of both natural and simulated herbivory on floral traits, pollinator visitation and plant reproductive output, expanding previous damage categories to include stem damage and mixed-tissue damage - defined here as damage affecting multiple plant tissues simultaneously (e.g. grazing that impacts both leaves and flowers). KEY RESULTS: Plant damage significantly reduced floral traits, pollinator attraction and reproductive success. These effects varied with both the type of damage and the tissue affected, with their interaction strongly moderating plant responses. Natural damage to leaves and flowers in most cases reduced floral traits, pollinator visitation and reproduction (except floral traits in the case of flower damage). By contrast, root and mixed damage had no significant effects. Simulated damage, on the other hand, also influenced responses: damage to flowers and stems only reduced floral traits, while damage to leaves reduced pollinator attraction. Importantly, our updated analysis corroborates some trends but also overturns earlier findings: whereas previous work suggested no impact of simulated herbivory, we now detect significant negative effects, and natural floral damage, once considered neutral or in some cases positive for reproduction, is revealed to be detrimental. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that herbivory alters plant-pollinator interactions in trait- and tissue-specific ways, providing new insights into the ecological and evolutionary consequences of plant-herbivore-pollinator linkages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.037
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207