Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41633711›Full record

ArticleEcology2026

Quantifying leaf herbivory: A guide to methodological trade-offs and best practices.

Tatiana Cornelissen, Gisele M Mendes, Fernando A O Silveira, Wesley Dáttilo, Roger Guevara, Ramiro Aguilar, Maria Gabriela Boaventura, Ricardo Campos, Ek Del Val, Guilherme Ramos Demetrio and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

32 authors.

Tatiana CornelissenCentro de Síntese Ecológica e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2721-7010
Gisele M MendesCentro de Síntese Ecológica e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1643-0342
Fernando A O SilveiraCentro de Síntese Ecológica e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9700-7521
Wesley DáttiloRed de Ecoetología, Instituto de Ecología AC, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4758-4379
Roger GuevaraRed de Biología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología AC, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0768-3580
Ramiro AguilarInstituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Maria Gabriela BoaventuraCentro de Síntese Ecológica e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Ricardo CamposDepartamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4093-3588
Ek Del ValInstituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, Michoacán, México.
Guilherme Ramos DemetrioLaboratório de Ecologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Unidade Educacional Penedo, Penedo, Alagoas, Brazil.
Marcilio FagundesLaboratório de Biologia da Conservação, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros, Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5915-6331
Rafael de Paiva FariasInstituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3252-2236
Geraldo W FernandesKnowledge Center for Biodiversity, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-6049
Tiago FernandesDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7462-6036
Inácio GomesLaboratório de Ecologia de Insetos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Thiago KlossLaboratório de Ecologia e Comportamento, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Juliana KuchenbeckerLaboratório de Ecologia Evolutiva e Biodiversidade, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Leandro MaracahipesYale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6148-3291
Frederico NevesLaboratório de Ecologia de Insetos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2691-3743
Lucas PaolucciEcotrop, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6403-5200
Cássio Cardoso PereiraLaboratório de Ecologia Evolutiva e Biodiversidade, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6017-4083
Elenir QueirozEcotrop, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Letícia RamosLaboratório de Ecologia Evolutiva e Biodiversidade, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Sérvio P RibeiroLaboratório de Ecologia do Adoecimento e Florestas, NUPEB-ICEB, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Campus Morro do Cruzeiro, Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Gustavo Q RomeroLaboratório de Interações Multitróficas e Biodiversidade, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3736-4759
Carolina OliveiraCentro de Síntese Ecológica e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Jhonathan O SilvaLaboratório de Ecologia Básica e Aplicada, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco, Senhor do Bonfim, Bahia, Brazil.
Tathiana SobrinhoLaboratório de Sistemática e Ecologia de Insetos, Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Campus São Mateus, São Mateus, Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Ricardo SolarCentro de Síntese Ecológica e Conservação, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Heraldo VasconcelosInstituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6969-7131
Gabriela ZorzalDepartamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
William C WetzelLand Resources & Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5390-6824

Funding

CAPES 88887.910715/2023-00CNPq 311243/2023-1FAPEALFAPEMIG 02806-22FAPEMIG 03263-23FAPESNational Science Foundation DEB-2409605PELD 445569/2024-7PELD 446041/2024-6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leaf herbivory is a ubiquitous ecological interaction that varies significantly in intensity across species, habitats, and biogeographic regions. Although quantification of leaf damage is crucial for understanding many ecological processes, the accuracy and precision of various damage estimation methods used by researchers, including visual estimation, digital image analysis, and artificial intelligence, have not been evaluated and compared. We use a phylogenetically diverse group of tropical plants to compare the accuracy and precision of damage estimation methods and use the results to provide a guide to herbivory estimation that balances the advantages and disadvantages of each method. We found that visual estimation tended to overestimate herbivory levels compared to digital methods but was 15 times faster and improved in accuracy and speed with training. Conversely, deep-learning algorithms underestimated herbivory relative to image analysis with ImageJ when it was on the margin, but showed similar accuracy for damage inside of leaf margins. Our results indicate that while visual methods allow for rapid assessment of large sample sizes and are suitable for detecting broad patterns of damage, image analysis is crucial for accurate and precise quantification. The disadvantages of each method, however, can be minimized through proper training and efficient use of each tool, and we therefore provide a guide of practical approaches to herbivory estimation.

Indexed as

HerbivoryPlant LeavesAnimalsdigital methodsfolivoryherbivory intensityherbivory protocolherbivory quantificationleaf damage

Identifiers

PMID41633711
PMCPMC12867601

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.