Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39829283›Full record

ReviewEcology letters2025

Weaker Plant-Frugivore Trait Matching Towards the Tropics and on Islands.

Xiao Huang, Bo Dalsgaard, Si-Chong Chen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Xiao HuangState Key Laboratory of Plant Diversity and Specialty Crops, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4762-8864
Bo DalsgaardSection for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2867-2805
Si-Chong ChenState Key Laboratory of Plant Diversity and Specialty Crops, Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6855-2595

Funding

Independent Research Fund Denmark 0135-00333BNational Natural Science Foundation of China 32371612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biotic interactions play an important role in species diversification and maintenance and, thus, are regarded as the architecture of biodiversity. Since Darwin and Wallace, biologists have debated whether biotic interactions are stronger towards the tropics and on continents, when compared to temperate regions and islands. Here, based on 354 avian frugivory networks accounting for 22,199 interactions between 1247 bird species and 2126 plant species, we quantified trait matching strength, which reflects interaction strength and specificity, across gradients of latitude and insularity globally. We found that matching between beak size and fruit size was significantly stronger towards the poles and on continents, when compared with the tropics and on islands. As underlining ecological factors, trait matching was stronger with a larger proportion of frugivory (measured as the mean proportion of fruits in bird diets) and network-level mean beak size, and with a smaller proportion of fleshy-fruited species (measured as the proportion of fleshy-fruited plant species in the botanical country where the network was located). These findings suggest that the latitudinal and insular patterns in trait matching are driven by biotic factors that may relate to trait co-evolution between interacting species and optimal foraging for bird species.

Indexed as

BirdsFeeding BehaviorFruitHerbivoryPlantsAnimalsBeakBiodiversityBiological EvolutionDietIslandsTropical Climateavian frugivorebiogeographybiotic interactionco‐evolutionendozoochoryseed dispersal

Identifiers

PMID39829283
PMCPMC11744342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.