ArticleEcology2026
Quantifying leaf herbivory: A guide to methodological trade-offs and best practices.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
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
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.