Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,807

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

HERBIVORY AND PLANT DEFENSES IN TROPICAL FORESTS

Coley, P. D., Barone, J. A.·1996·Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

Abstract

▪ Abstract In this review, we discuss the ecological and evolutionary consequences of plant-herbivore interactions in tropical forests. We note first that herbivory rates are higher in tropical forests than in temperate ones and that, in contrast to leaves in temperate forests, most of the damage to tropical leaves occurs when they are young and expanding. Leaves in dry tropical forests also suffer higher rates of damage than in wet forests, and damage is greater in the understory than in the canopy. Insect herbivores, which typically have a narrow host range in the tropics, cause most of the damage to leaves and have selected for a wide variety of chemical, developmental, and phenological defenses in plants. Pathogens are less studied but cause considerable damage and, along with insect herbivores, may contribute to the maintenance of tree diversity. Folivorous mammals do less damage than insects or pathogens but have evolved to cope with the high levels of plant defenses. Leaves in tropical forests are defended by having low nutritional quality, greater toughness, and a wide variety of secondary metabolites, many of which are more common in tropical than temperate forests. Tannins, toughness, and low nutritional quality lengthen insect developmental times, making them more vulnerable to predators and parasitoids. The widespread occurrence of these defenses suggests that natural enemies are key participants in plant defenses and may have influenced the evolution of these traits. To escape damage, leaves may expand rapidly, be flushed synchronously, or be produced during the dry season when herbivores are rare. One strategy virtually limited to tropical forests is for plants to flush leaves but delay “greening” them until the leaves are mature. Many of these defensive traits are correlated within species, due to physiological constraints and tradeoffs. In general, shade-tolerant species invest more in defenses than do gap-requiring ones, and species with long-lived leaves are better defended than those with short-lived leaves.

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 · 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.305

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,807

Metadata

Authors
Coley, P. D., & Barone, J. A.
Venue
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
Published
1996-11
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
305-335
ISSN
0066-4162 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2150998549
Cited by
1,807
References
2
FWCI
31.33
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: HERBIVORY AND PLANT DEFENSES IN TROPICAL FORESTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.305
The paper
Coley, P. D., & Barone, J. A. (1996). HERBIVORY AND PLANT DEFENSES IN TROPICAL FORESTS. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.305

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.