The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Volatile communication between plants that affects herbivory: a meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Volatile communication between plants causing enhanced defence has been controversial. Early studies were not replicated, and influential reviews questioned the validity of the phenomenon. We collected 48 well‐replicated studies and found overall support for the hypothesis that resistance increased for individuals with damaged neighbours. Laboratory or greenhouse studies and those conducted on agricultural crops showed stronger induced resistance than field studies on undomesticated species, presumably because other variation had been reduced. A cumulative analysis revealed that early, non‐replicated studies were more variable and showed less evidence for communication. Effects of habitat and plant growth form were undetectable. In most cases, the mechanisms of resistance and alternative hypotheses were not considered. There was no indication that some response variables were more likely to produce large effects. These results indicate that plants of diverse taxonomic affinities and ecological conditions become more resistant to herbivores when exposed to volatiles from damaged neighbours.
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
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
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 1×
“To incorporate the fact that uncertainty in effect size varies across experiments, we calculated the sample variance for the log response ratio after Hedges et al. (1999).”
MethodLeimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2004) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2828 · Cited by 156
Cited by
The role of volatiles in plant communication
Bouwmeester, H., Schuurink, R. C., Bleeker, P. M., & Schiestl, F. (2019) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.14496 · Cited by 396
Plant secondary metabolites: a key driver of litter decomposition and soil nutrient cycling
Chomel, M., Guittonny‐Larchevêque, M., Fernandez, C., Gallet, C., DesRochers, A., Paré, D., Jackson, B. G., & Baldy, V. (2016) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12644 · Cited by 382
Abbas, F., Ke, Y., Yu, R., Yue, Y., Amanullah, S., Jahangir, M. M., & Fan, Y. (2017) · Planta · doi:10.1007/s00425-017-2749-x · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Karban, R., Yang, L. H., & Edwards, K. F.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-10-27
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-52
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2126091912
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Volatile communication between plants that affects herbivory: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ele.12205
- The paper
- Karban, R., Yang, L. H., & Edwards, K. F. (2014). Volatile communication between plants that affects herbivory: a meta‐analysis. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12205
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.
