↓ Skip to main content

The effects of invertebrate herbivores on plant population growth: a meta-regression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
The effects of invertebrate herbivores on plant population growth: a meta-regression analysis
Published in
Oecologia, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00442-016-3602-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel S. W. Katz

Abstract

Over the last two decades, an increasing number of studies have quantified the effects of herbivory on plant populations using stage-structured population models and integral projection models, allowing for the calculation of plant population growth rates (λ) with and without herbivory. In this paper, I assembled 29 studies and conducted a meta-regression to determine the importance of invertebrate herbivores to population growth rates (λ) while accounting for missing data. I found that invertebrate herbivory often induced important reductions in plant population growth rates (with herbivory, λ was 1.08 ± 0.36; without herbivory, λ was 1.28 ± 0.58). This relationship tended to be weaker for seed predation than for other types of herbivory, except when seed predation rates were very high. Even so, the amount by which studies reduced herbivory was a poor predictor of differences in population growth rates-which strongly cautions against using measured herbivory rates as a proxy for the impact of herbivores. Herbivory reduced plant population growth rates significantly more when potential growth rates were high, which helps to explain why there was less variation in actual population growth rates than in potential population growth rates. The synthesis of these studies also shows the need for future studies to report variance in estimates of λ and to quantify how λ varies as a function of plant density.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 61%
Environmental Science 10 17%
Computer Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 11 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,467,278
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,655
of 4,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,221
of 300,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#55
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.