Changes in arthropod community but not plant quality benefit a specialist herbivore on plants under reduced water availability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants growing under reduced water availability can affect insect herbivores differently, in some instances benefitting them. However, the forces mediating these positive impacts remain mostly unclear. To identify how water availability impacts plant quality and multitrophic interactions, we conducted manipulative field studies with two populations of the specialist herbivore Pieris rapae, and its host plant, Rorippa indica. We found that P. rapae larvae experienced higher survival on R. indica growing under low water availability compared with plants grown under high water availability. Higher survival of eggs and larvae was related to the reduced abundance of other herbivores and natural enemies. Water availability had differential impacts on other members of the herbivore community by altering plant quality. Low water availability decreased the quality of R. indica to most herbivores, as indicated by reduced abundance in the field and decreased relative growth rate in laboratory feeding assays. In contrast, P. rapae larval performance was not affected by sympatric R. indica grown under different water availability. These results indicate that local P. rapae populations possess physiological adaptations to overcome fluctuations in host quality. Our findings illustrate that reduced water availability is beneficial to a specialist herbivore but detrimental to most other herbivores. Our work highlights the complex effects of the arthropod communities associated with plants in determining the impacts of water availability on insect herbivores.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".