The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Herbivory Benefit Plants? A Review of the Evidence
Abstract
The potential benefits of herbivory to plants have been debated over the last decade. Several investigators claim that removal of or damage to the productive, absorptive, or reproductive tissue of plants by herbivores benefits some plant species by increasing their net primary productivity, seed production, or longevity, and that these changes increase plant fitness and result in the evolution of herbivore-plant mutualisms. Although more than 40 papers have been cited as presenting experimental evidence in support of these benefits and mutualisms, strong evidence is lacking. Increased plant biomass as a result of tissue removal has been found only under growth-chamber conditions and in cultivated crops. Although herbivores may benefit certain plants by reducing competition or removing senescent tissue, no convincing evidence supports the theory that herbivory benefits grazed plants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Harper, J. L. (1977) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,128
Larcher, W. (1980) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-96545-6 · Cited by 3,038
Ecology of a Grazing Ecosystem: The Serengeti
McNaughton, S. J. (1985) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942578 · Cited by 1,367
Grazing as an Optimization Process: Grass-Ungulate Relationships in the Serengeti
McNaughton, S. J. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283426 · Cited by 1,265
Herbivory: the Dynamics of Animal-plant Interactions
Crawley, M. J. (1983) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,211
Grazing Lawns: Animals in Herds, Plant Form, and Coevolution
McNaughton, S. J. (1984) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284321 · Cited by 979
Herbivory: The Dynamics of Animal-Plant Interactions.
Thompson, J. N., & Crawley, M. J. (1984) · The Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2260079 · Cited by 765
A Unified Approach to Marine Plant-Herbivore Interactions. I. Populations and Communities
Lubchenco, J., & Gaines, S. D. (1981) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.12.110181.002201 · Cited by 644
Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production
Mattson, W. J., & Addy, N. D. (1975) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.190.4214.515 · Cited by 573
Caldwell, M. M., Richards, J. H., Johnson, D. A., Nowak, R. S., & Dzurec, R. S. (1981) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/bf00378790 · Cited by 548
Cited by
Augustine, D. J., & McNaughton, S. J. (1998) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3801981 · Cited by 1,129
Modification of Ecosystems by Ungulates
Hobbs, N. T. (1996) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802368 · Cited by 1,016
Fungal Endophytes of Grasses: A Defensive Mutualism between Plants and Fungi
Clay, K. (1988) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1943155 · Cited by 853
Maron, J. L., & Vilà, M. (2001) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950301.x · Cited by 834
Sea Otters and Kelp Forests in Alaska: Generality and Variation in a Community Ecological Paradigm
Estes, J. A., & Duggins, D. O. (1995) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/2937159 · Cited by 798
Metadata
- Authors
- Belsky, A. J.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1986-06
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 870-892
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2015296317
- Cited by
- 1,018
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 71.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does Herbivory Benefit Plants? A Review of the Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284531
- The paper
- Belsky, A. J. (1986). Does Herbivory Benefit Plants? A Review of the Evidence. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284531
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
