The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory
Abstract
The importance of interspecific competition is a highly controversial and unresolved issue for community ecology in general, and for phytophagous insects in particular. Recent advancements, however, in our understanding of indirect (plant‐ and enemy‐mediated) interactions challenge the historical paradigms of competition. Thus, in the context of this rapidly developing field, we re‐evaluate the evidence for interspecific competition in phytophagous insects using a meta‐analysis of published studies. Our analysis is specifically designed to test the assumptions underlying traditional competition theory, namely that competitive interactions are symmetrical, necessitate spatial and temporal co‐occurrence, and increase in intensity as the density, phylogenetic similarity, and niche overlap of competing species increase. Despite finding frequent evidence for competition, we found very little evidence that plant‐feeding insects conform to theoretical predictions for interspecific competition. Interactions were highly asymmetrical, similar in magnitude within vs. between feeding guilds (chewers vs. sap‐feeders), and were unaffected by the quantity of resources removed (% defoliation). There was mixed support for the effects of phylogeny, spatial/temporal separation, and the relative strength of intra‐ vs. interspecific competition. Clearly, a new paradigm that accounts for indirect interactions and facilitation is required to describe how interspecific competition contributes to the organization of phytophagous insect communities, and perhaps to other plant and animal communities as well.
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
Fluctuations in the Abundance of a Species considered Mathematically1
VOLTERRA, V. (1926) · Nature · doi:10.1038/118558a0 · Cited by 2,054
Cited by
The evolutionary context for herbivore-induced plant volatiles: beyond the ‘cry for help’
Dicke, M., & Baldwin, I. T. (2010) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2009.12.002 · Cited by 1,245
Reproductive Interference Between Animal Species
Gröning, J., & Hochkirch, A. (2008) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/590510 · Cited by 594
Balbi, V., & Devoto, A. (2008) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02292.x · Cited by 414
Kant, M. R., Jonckheere, W., Knegt, B., Lemos, F., Liu, J., Schimmel, B. C. J., Villarroel, C. A., Ataide, L. M. S., Dermauw, W., Glas, J. J., et al. (2015) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcv054 · Cited by 360
Mandaokar, A., Thines, B., Shin, B., Markus Lange, B., Choi, G., Koo, Y. J., Yoo, Y. J., Choi, Y. D., Choi, G., & Browse, J. (2006) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-313x.2006.02756.x · Cited by 360
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaplan, I., & Denno, R. F.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-25
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 977-994
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2137980122
- Cited by
- 673
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 40.03
- 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: Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01093.x
- The paper
- Kaplan, I., & Denno, R. F. (2007). Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01093.x
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.