ArticlePloS one2017
Traits underlying community consequences of plant intra-specific diversity.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Unifying Evolutionary Ecology and Genomics to Understand Positive Plant-Plant Interactions Within Wild Species.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
- Sexual and genotypic variation in terpene quantitative and qualitative profiles in the dioecious shrub Baccharis salicifolia.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Relative effects of genetic variation sensu lato and sexual dimorphism on plant traits and associated arthropod communities.Oecologia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A plant's performance and interactions with other trophic levels are recorgnized to be contingent upon plant diversity and underlying associational dynamics, but far less is known about the plant traits driving such phenomena. We manipulated diversity in plant traits using pairs of plant and a substitutive design to elucidate the mechanisms underlying diversity effects operating at a fine spatial scale. Specifically, we measured the effects of diversity in sex (sexual monocultures vs. male and female genotypes together) and growth rate (growth rate monocultures vs. fast- and slow-growing genotypes together) on growth of the shrub Baccharis salicifolia and on above- and belowground consumers associated with this plant. We compared effects on associate abundance (# associates per plant) vs. density (# associates per kg plant biomass) to elucidate the mechanisms underlying diversity effects; effects on abundance but not density suggest diversity effects are mediated by resource abundance (i.e. plant biomass) alone, whereas effects on density suggest diversity effects are mediated by plant-based heterogeneity or quality. Sexual diversity increased root growth but reduced the density (but not abundance) of the dietary generalist aphid Aphis gossypii and its associated aphid-tending ants, suggesting sex mixtures were of lower quality to this herbivore (e.g. via reduced plant quality), and that this effect indirectly influenced ants. Sexual diversity had no effect on the abundance or density of parasitoids attacking A. gossypii, the dietary specialist aphid Uroleucon macolai, or mycorrhizae. In contrast, growth rate diversity did not influence plant growth or any associates except for the dietary specialist aphid U. macolai, which increased in both abundance and density at high diversity, suggesting growth rate mixtures were of higher quality to this herbivore. These results highlight that plant associational and diversity effects on consumers are contingent upon the source of plant trait variation, and that the nature of such dynamics may vary both within and among trophic levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.