Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31644586›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Quantitative assessment of plant-arthropod interactions in forest canopies: A plot-based approach.

Martin Volf, Petr Klimeš, Greg P A Lamarre, Conor M Redmond, Carlo L Seifert, Tomokazu Abe, John Auga, Kristina Anderson-Teixeira, Yves Basset, Saul Beckett and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

30 authors.

Martin VolfBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4126-3897
Petr KlimešBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Greg P A LamarreBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Conor M RedmondBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-1856-6833
Carlo L SeifertBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Tomokazu AbeFaculty of Science, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
John AugaNew Guinea Binatang Research Center, Madang, Papua New Guinea.
Kristina Anderson-TeixeiraConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute; Front Royal, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8461-9713
Yves BassetBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Saul BeckettForestGEO, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Panama.
Philip T ButterillBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5554-6591
Pavel DrozdFaculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4602-8856
Erika Gonzalez-AkreConservation Ecology Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute; Front Royal, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8305-6672
Ondřej KamanBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Naoto KamataGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Furano, Japan.
Benita Laird-HopkinsBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-0270-1241
Martin LibraBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-3608-8780
Markus ManumborNew Guinea Binatang Research Center, Madang, Papua New Guinea.
Scott E MillerNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Kenneth MolemNew Guinea Binatang Research Center, Madang, Papua New Guinea.
Ondřej MottlBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9796-5081
Masashi MurakamiFaculty of Science, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
Tatsuro NakajiTomakomai Experimental Forest, Hokkaido University, Tomakomai, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3161-1539
Nichola S PlowmanBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Petr PyszkoFaculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3743-7201
Martin ŠigutFaculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4876-9794
Jan ŠipošInstitute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.
Robert TropekBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7499-6259
George D WeiblenBell Museum and Department of Plant & Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States of America.
Vojtech NovotnyBiology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on canopy arthropods has progressed from species inventories to the study of their interactions and networks, enhancing our understanding of how hyper-diverse communities are maintained. Previous studies often focused on sampling individual tree species, individual trees or their parts. We argue that such selective sampling is not ideal when analyzing interaction network structure, and may lead to erroneous conclusions. We developed practical and reproducible sampling guidelines for the plot-based analysis of arthropod interaction networks in forest canopies. Our sampling protocol focused on insect herbivores (leaf-chewing insect larvae, miners and gallers) and non-flying invertebrate predators (spiders and ants). We quantitatively sampled the focal arthropods from felled trees, or from trees accessed by canopy cranes or cherry pickers in 53 0.1 ha forest plots in five biogeographic regions, comprising 6,280 trees in total. All three methods required a similar sampling effort and provided good foliage accessibility. Furthermore, we compared interaction networks derived from plot-based data to interaction networks derived from simulated non-plot-based data focusing either on common tree species or a representative selection of tree families. All types of non-plot-based data showed highly biased network structure towards higher connectance, higher web asymmetry, and higher nestedness temperature when compared with plot-based data. Furthermore, some types of non-plot-based data showed biased diversity of the associated herbivore species and specificity of their interactions. Plot-based sampling thus appears to be the most rigorous approach for reconstructing realistic, quantitative plant-arthropod interaction networks that are comparable across sites and regions. Studies of plant interactions have greatly benefited from a plot-based approach and we argue that studies of arthropod interactions would benefit in the same way. We conclude that plot-based studies on canopy arthropods would yield important insights into the processes of interaction network assembly and dynamics, which could be maximised via a coordinated network of plot-based study sites.

Indexed as

Host-Parasite InteractionsAnimalsArthropodsForestsLarvaPlantsTrees

Identifiers

PMID31644586
PMCPMC6808442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.