Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33339887›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Interacting effects of insect and ungulate herbivory on Scots pine growth.

Michelle Nordkvist, Maartje J Klapwijk, La Rs Edenius, Christer Björkman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michelle NordkvistDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. michelle.nordkvist@slu.se.
Maartje J KlapwijkDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
La Rs EdeniusDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
Christer BjörkmanDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most plants are subjected to damage from multiple species of herbivores, and the combined impact on plant growth can be non-additive. Since plant response to herbivores tends to be species specific, and change with repeated damage, the outcome likely depend on the sequence and number of attacks. There is a high likelihood of non-additive effects on plant growth by damage from mammals and insects, as mammalian herbivory can alter insect herbivore damage levels, yet few studies have explored this. We report the growth response of young Scots pine trees to sequential mammal and insect herbivory, varying the sequence and number of damage events, using an ungulate-pine-sawfly system. Combined sawfly and ungulate herbivory had both additive and non-additive effects on pine growth-the growth response depended on the combination of ungulate browsing and sawfly defoliation (significant interaction effect). Repeated sawfly herbivory reduced growth (compared to single defoliation) on un-browsed trees. However, on browsed trees, depending on when sawfly defoliation was combined with browsing, trees exposed to repeated sawfly herbivory had both higher, lower and the same growth as trees exposed to a single defoliation event. We conclude that the sequence of attacks by multiple herbivores determine plant growth response.

Indexed as

AnimalsHerbivoryHumansInsectaMammalsPinusPlant Leaves

Identifiers

PMID33339887
PMCPMC7749124
OpenAlexW3114916300

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.