ArticleAnnals of botany2022
Trunk spines of trees: a physical defence against bark removal and climbing by mammals?
Article in Annals of botany, 2022. 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.
- Review
- Blocking then stinging as a case of two-step evolution of defensive cage architectures in herbivore-driven ecosystems.Nature plants · 2024Article
- A new, disjunct species ofPhytoKeys · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe defensive role of spines has previously been related to leaves, young shoots and reproductive organs. However, some woody species harbour spines on their trunks where none of those organs are present. Several explanations are plausible: they could be (1) climbing aids, (2) remnants from defence of leaves or reproductive organs during an earlier development phase, or (3) an as-yet undescribed defence. Here we investigate whether they could play a role against either bark feeding or preventing climbing animals accessing food resources in the tree canopy.
methodsWe described 31 woody species with spines on their trunk, growing in a botanical garden, to test whether morphological strategies could be identified and suggest what could be their most likely function. As testing their function is difficult experimentally for large pools of species, we performed virtual experiments to evaluate the potential roles of trunk spines against bark removal and climbing animals of different sizes. We then compared for each species and their confamilial non-spiny species the nutritional profiles of leaf, bark and reproductive organs to test whether trunk spines were associated with a nutritious organ (more likely targeted by herbivores). KEY
resultsWe identified four morphological syndromes of trunk spines. Two corresponded to already known functions (anchorage for lianas and crown defence against large ground mammals), and two strategies are newly described trait syndromes with traits suggesting a defence against bark feeding and climbing mammals. By simulation, we show how each strategy could translate into defence against debarking and prevent herbivores from climbing.
conclusionsWe identified trunk spine strategies and the criteria to classify them, their most likely function and the likely feeding mode and size of animal against which different trunk spine strategies may be effective. We discuss further perspectives for testing their function and their ecological significance.
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.