Cited by 48Plant responses to elevated CO2Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlClimate change impacts on agriculture

Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Affects Interactions Between Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Larvae and Two Host Plant Species Outdoors

Caulfield, Frances, Bunce, James A.·1994·Environmental Entomology

Abstract

Beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner), larvae were placed on sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) and pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) plants in outdoor chambers in which the plants were growing at either the ambient (≈350 μl liter−1) or ambient plus 350 μl liter−1 (≈700 μl liter−1) carbon dioxide concentration. A series of experiments was performed to determine if larvae reduced plant growth differently at the two carbon dioxide concentrations in either species and if the insect growth or survival differed with carbon dioxide concentration. Leaf nitrogen, water, starch, and soluble carbohydrate contents were measured to assess carbon dioxide concentration effects on leaf quality. Insect feeding significantly reduced plant growth in sugarbeet plants at 350 μl liter−1 but not at 700 μl liter−1 nor in pigweed at either carbon dioxide concentration. Larval survival was greater on sugarbeet plants at the elevated carbon dioxide concentration. Increased survival occurred only if the insects were at the elevated carbon dioxide concentration and consumed leaf material grown at the elevated concentration. Leaf quality was only marginally affected by growth at elevated carbon dioxide concentration in these experiments. The results indicate that in designing experiments to predict effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on plant–insect interactions, both plants and insects should be exposed to the experimental carbon dioxide concentrations, as well as to as realistic environmental conditions as possible.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ee/23.4.999

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caulfield, F., & Bunce, J. A.
Affiliations
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (US)
Venue
Environmental Entomology
Published
1994-08-01
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
999-1005
ISSN
  • 0046-225X (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-2936
OpenAlex
W2169878829
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Environmental Entomology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
Keywords
elevated CO2, Spodoptera exigua, sugar beet, Beta vulgaris, Amaranthus hybridus, pigweed, plant-insect interactions, larval survival, plant growth, leaf quality, leaf nitrogen content

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