The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bottom‐up vs. top‐down effects on terrestrial insect herbivores: a meta‐analysis
Abstract
Primary consumers are under strong selection from resource (‘bottom‐up’) and consumer (‘top‐down’) controls, but the relative importance of these selective forces is unknown. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the strength of top‐down and bottom‐up forces on consumer fitness, considering multiple predictors that can modulate these effects: diet breadth, feeding guild, habitat/environment, type of bottom‐up effects, type of top‐down effects and how consumer fitness effects are measured. We focused our analyses on the most diverse group of primary consumers, herbivorous insects, and found that in general top‐down forces were stronger than bottom‐up forces. Notably, chewing, sucking and gall‐making herbivores were more affected by top‐down than bottom‐up forces, top‐down forces were stronger than bottom‐up in both natural and controlled (cultivated) environments, and parasitoids and predators had equally strong top‐down effects on insect herbivores. Future studies should broaden the scope of focal consumers, particularly in understudied terrestrial systems, guilds, taxonomic groups and top‐down controls (e.g. pathogens), and test for more complex indirect community interactions. Our results demonstrate the surprising strength of forces exerted by natural enemies on herbivorous insects, and thus the necessity of using a tri‐trophic approach when studying insect‐plant interactions.
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
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.200810425 · Cited by 13,847
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×
“…effect sizes for the meta-analysis, we used log response ratio (RR): RR = ln(mean treatment/mean control) Some researchers prioritise using RR because it is not biased by differences in sample size among experiments and usually follows a normal distribution (Hedges et al. 1999; Gruner et al. 2008).”
MethodBUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A STUDY IN COEVOLUTION
Ehrlich, P. R., & Raven, P. H. (1964) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1964.tb01674.x · Cited by 4,495
Resource 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
The Trophic‐Dynamic Aspect of Ecology
Lindeman, R. L. (1942) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1930126 · Cited by 3,437
Price, P. W., Bouton, C. E., Gross, P., McPheron, B. A., Thompson, J. N., & Weis, A. E. (1980) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.000353 · Cited by 2,345
Plant Apparency and Chemical Defense
Feeny, P. (1976) · Biochemical Interaction Between Plants and Insects · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2646-5_1 · Cited by 2,344
THE EVOLUTION OF ECOLOGICAL SPECIALIZATION
Futuyma, D. J., & Moreno, G. (1988) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.19.110188.001231 · Cited by 2,287
Cited by
Fischer, C., Gerstmeier, R., & Wagner, T. C. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07716-0 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Vidal, M. C., & Murphy, S. M.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-11-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 138-150
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2767042057
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 85
- FWCI
- 18.98
- 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: Bottom‐up vs. top‐down effects on terrestrial insect herbivores: a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ele.12874
- The paper
- Vidal, M. C., & Murphy, S. M. (2018). Bottom‐up vs. top‐down effects on terrestrial insect herbivores: a meta‐analysis. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12874
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.