Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31007332›Full record

ArticleFunctional ecology2019

Ecological interactions shape the adaptive value of plant defence: Herbivore attack versus competition for light.

Jorad de Vries, Jochem B Evers, Marcel Dicke, Erik H Poelman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Functional ecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Plants cultivated for ecosystem restoration can evolve toward a domestication syndrome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Growth-defense trade-offs shape population genetic composition in an iconic forest tree species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Jorad de VriesLaboratory of Entomology Wageningen University Wageningen The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2656-2231
Jochem B EversCentre for Crop System Analysis Wageningen University Wageningen The Netherlands.
Marcel DickeLaboratory of Entomology Wageningen University Wageningen The Netherlands.
Erik H PoelmanLaboratory of Entomology Wageningen University Wageningen The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants defend themselves against diverse communities of herbivorous insects. This requires an investment of limited resources, for which plants also compete with neighbours. The consequences of an investment in defence are determined by the metabolic costs of defence as well as indirect or ecological costs through interactions with other organisms. These ecological costs have a potentially strong impact on the evolution of defensive traits, but have proven to be difficult to quantify.We aimed to quantify the relative impact of the direct and indirect or ecological costs and benefits of an investment in plant defence in relation to herbivory and intergenotypic competition for light. Additionally, we evaluated how the benefits of plant defence balance its costs in the context of herbivory and intergenotypic competition.To this end, we utilised a functional-structural plant (FSP) model of

Indexed as

Brassica nigracompetitionecological costsfunctional‐structural plant modellinggrowth‐defence trade‐offherbivore interactionsherbivoryplantplant defence

Identifiers

PMID31007332
PMCPMC6472621

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.