The DOI matches its Crossref record; 123 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Terrestrial Trophic Cascades: How Much Do They Trickle?
Abstract
Although more consensus is now emerging on the magnitude and frequency of cascading trophic effects in aquatic communities, the debate over their terrestrial counterparts continues. We used meta-analysis to analyze field experiments on trophic cascades in terrestrial arthropod-dominated food webs to evaluate the overall magnitude of trophic cascades and conditions affecting their occurrence and strength. We found extensive support for the presence of trophic cascades in terrestrial communities. In the majority of experiments, predator removal led to increased densities of herbivorous insects and higher levels of plant damage. Cascades in which removing predators led to decreased herbivory also were detected but were less frequent and weaker, suggesting a predominantly three-trophic-level behavior of arthropod-dominated terrestrial food webs. Despite the clear evidence that cascades often decreased plant damage, residual effects of predation produced either no or only minimal changes in overall plant biomass. Agricultural systems and natural communities exhibited similarly strong effects of predation on herbivore abundance. However, resulting effects on plant damage and community-wide effects of trophic cascades on plant biomass usually were highly variable, and only in the managed agricultural systems did predators occasionally have strong indirect effects on plant biomass. Our meta-analysis suggests that the effects of trophic cascades on the biomass of primary producers are weaker in terrestrial than aquatic food webs.
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
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, J. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203771587 · Cited by 25,373
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity
Paine, R. T. (1966) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282400 · Cited by 5,361
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 2×
“To min-ln (RR) imize the bias of using , it is recommended thatln (RR) either Ïne /SDe or Ïnc /SDc, whichever is smaller,X Xe c be 13.0 (Hedges et al. 1999; , n, and SD denote theX mean, sample size, and standard error, respectively, of experimental, e, and control groups, c).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialResource Availability and Plant Antiherbivore Defense
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P., & Chapin, F. S. (1985) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.230.4728.895 · Cited by 3,967
Community structure, population control, and competition.
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E., & Slobodkin, L. B. (1960) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282146 · Cited by 3,492
Brooks, J. L., & Dodson, S. I. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.150.3692.28 · Cited by 3,280
Cascading Trophic Interactions and Lake Productivity
Carpenter, S. R., Kitchell, J. F., & Hodgson, J. R. (1985) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1309989 · Cited by 2,646
Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities
Holt, R. D. (1977) · Theoretical Population Biology · doi:10.1016/0040-5809(77)90042-9 · Cited by 2,535
Cited by
Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—Ecosystem service management
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x · Cited by 4,455
Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions
Preisser, E. L., Bolnick, D. I., & Benard, M. F. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-0719 · Cited by 1,840
A cross‐ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades
Shurin, J. B., Borer, E. T., Seabloom, E. W., Anderson, K., Blanchette, C. A., Broitman, B., Cooper, S. D., & Halpern, B. S. (2002) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00381.x · Cited by 973
Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review
Letourneau, D. K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B. S., Lerma, J. M., Carmona, E. J., Daza, M. C., Escobar, S., Galindo, V., Gutiérrez, C., López, S. D., et al. (2011) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/09-2026.1 · Cited by 888
Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection
Duffy, J. E. (2002) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990201.x · Cited by 653
Metadata
- Authors
- Halaj, J., & Wise, D. H.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 157
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 262-281
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W1986842580
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 123
- FWCI
- 31.33
- 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: Terrestrial Trophic Cascades: How Much Do They Trickle? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/319190
- The paper
- Halaj, J., & Wise, D. H. (2001). Terrestrial Trophic Cascades: How Much Do They Trickle? The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/319190
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.