Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30913306›Full record

ArticleEcology2019

Overcompensation: a 30-year perspective.

Satu Ramula, Ken N Paige, Tommy Lennartsson, Juha Tuomi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Journal of plant diseases and protection : scientific journal of the German Phytomedical Society (DPG) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Satu RamulaDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, 20014, Finland.
Ken N PaigeSchool of Integrative Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 505 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, Illinois, 61801, USA.
Tommy LennartssonSwedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7016, Uppsala, 75007, Sweden.
Juha TuomiDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, 20014, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomass removal by herbivores usually incurs a fitness cost for the attacked plants, with the total cost per unit lost tissue depending on the value of the removed tissue (i.e., how costly it is to be replaced by regrowth). Optimal defense theory, first outlined in the 1960s and 1970s, predicted that these fitness costs result in an arms race between plants and herbivores, in which selection favors resistance strategies that either repel herbivores through morphological and chemical resistance traits in order to reduce their consumption, or result in enemy escape through rapid growth or by timing the growth or flowering to the periods when herbivores are absent. Such resistance against herbivores would most likely evolve when herbivores are abundant, cause extensive damage, and consume valuable plant tissues. The purpose of this Special Feature is to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the phenomenon of overcompensation, specifically, where the finding has brought us and where it is leading us 30 yr later. We first provide a short overview of how the phenomenon of overcompensation has led to broader studies on plant tolerance to herbivory, summarize key findings, and then discuss some promising new directions in light of six featured research papers.

Indexed as

HerbivoryPlantsBiomassPhenotypeherbivoryovercompensationovercompensation 30 years laterplant defenseplant-herbivore interactionsresistancetolerance

Identifiers

PMID30913306
PMCPMC6850278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.