Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Specialist and generalist herbivores exert opposing selection on a chemical defense

Open access
Lankau, Richard A.·2007·New Phytologist

Abstract

* Plant defense traits often show high levels of genetic variation, despite clear impacts on plant fitness. This variation may be partly maintained by trade-offs in the defense against multiple herbivore species, for example between generalists and coevolved specialists. Despite a long-standing discussion in the literature on the subject, no study to date has specifically manipulated specialist and generalist herbivores independently of one another to determine whether the two guilds exert opposing selection pressures on specific defensive traits. * In two separate experiments, the dominant specialist and generalist herbivores of Brassica nigra were independently manipulated to test whether the composition of the herbivore community altered the direction of selection on a major defensive trait of the plant, sinigrin concentration. * It was found that generalist damage was negatively correlated but specialist loads were positively correlated with increasing sinigrin concentrations; and sinigrin concentration was favored when specialists were removed, disfavored (past an intermediate point) when generalists were removed and selectively neutral when plants faced both generalists and specialists.

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 · 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02090.x

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lankau, R. A.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-04-23
Volume
175
Issue
1
Pages
176-184
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2038723016
Cited by
266
References
0
FWCI
15.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.