Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Herbivore Responses to Plant Secondary Compounds: A Test of Phytochemical Coevolution Theory

Cornell, Howard V., Hawkins, Bradford A.·2003·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Literature data were collected on the floristic distribution and toxicity of phytochemicals to herbivores and on herbivore specialization in order to test phytochemical coevolution theory. The theory makes four predictions that can be tested with this information. Herbivores can adapt to novel, more toxic chemicals by becoming specialists, or they can become generalists but at the cost of lower feeding success on any particular host. Thus, the first two predictions are as follows: herbivores should do better on chemicals that are present in their normal host, and this pattern should be stronger for specialists than for generalists. The "escape and radiation" aspect of the theory holds that if a plant taxon with a novel defense chemical diversifies, the chemical will become widespread. Eventually, herbivores will adapt to and disarm it. So the third prediction is that more widespread chemicals are less toxic than more narrowly distributed ones. Because generalists should not do as well as specialists on chemicals disarmed by the latter, the fourth prediction is that the third prediction should be more true for generalists than specialists and should depend on presence/absence of the chemical in the normal host. Multiple regressions of toxicity (herbivore mortality and final weight) on three predictor variables (chemical presence/absence in the normal host, specialism, and chemical floristic distribution) and relevant interactions were used to test these predictions. Chemical presence/absence in the normal host, the interaction between this variable and specialism, and chemical floristic distribution had significant effects on both measures of toxicity, supporting the first three predictions of the model. Support for the fourth prediction (a three-way interaction among all predictor variables) was evident for final weight but not mortality, perhaps because growth is more responsive to toxicity differences than survival. In short, the phytochemistry literature provides broad support for the phytochemical coevolution model.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/368346

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 98 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Cornell, H. V., & Hawkins, B. A.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2003-04
Volume
161
Issue
4
Pages
507-522
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2091275472
Cited by
273
References
98
FWCI
10.54
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: Herbivore Responses to Plant Secondary Compounds: A Test of Phytochemical Coevolution Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/368346
The paper
Cornell, H. V., & Hawkins, B. A. (2003). Herbivore Responses to Plant Secondary Compounds: A Test of Phytochemical Coevolution Theory. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/368346

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.