Cited by 436Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlAvian ecology and behaviorForest Insect Ecology and Management

Insectivorous Birds Increase Growth of White Oak through Consumption of Leaf-Chewing Insects

Marquis, Robert J., Whelan, Christopher J.·1994·Ecology

Abstract

We examined the indirect effects of insectivorous birds on plant growth through consumption of leaf—chewing insects in a Missouri Ozark deciduous forest. Over a period of 2 yr, we compared insect numbers, leaf damage, and resultant plant growth for control saplings of white oak (Quercus alba), vs. saplings that we caged to limit access by insectivorous birds but not herbivorous insects. In a third treatment, we sprayed insecticide on young white oak trees to determine the impact of the insect herbivores on plant growth in the presence of birds. The total number of insects encountered on plants inside of cages was twice that on control plants for both years. Insecticide spray reduced herbivore numbers substantially but did not eliminate them. As a result of the treatments, cage plants suffered 25% leaf area loss, control plants 13%, and spray plants 6% at the end of the first season (34, 24, and 9%, respectively, for the 2nd yr). As a result of the differences in damage, cage plants produced one—third less total aboveground biomass compared to insecticide—treated plants, with control plants producing intermediate value. Differences in biomass production were due mainly to decreased leaf biomass, which in turn was associated with decreased leaf size in subsequent years as a result to high damage during the previous year. This is the first terrestrial ecosystem study to demonstrate a significant impact of insectivorous birds on plant growth. Our results suggest that over the long term observed declines in North American populations of insectivorous birds may reduce forest productivity because of potentially higher numbers of leaf—chewing insects and the concomitant negative effect on plant growth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1941605

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The counter cascade of arthropod declines despite predator decreases conflicts with decades of research on trophic dynamics and with studies documenting the major impact of anoles, frogs, and birds on arthropod abundance.

    “This “counter cascade” conflicts with decades of research on trophic dynamics (44), as well as studies documenting the major impact of anoles, frogs, and birds on arthropod abundance (45, 46).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marquis, R. J., & Whelan, C. J.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-10
Volume
75
Issue
7
Pages
2007-2014
ISSN
0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042570348
Cited by
436
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 20
FWCI
23.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
insectivorous birds, Quercus alba, leaf-chewing insects, herbivory, plant growth, indirect effects, bird population decline, forest productivity, leaf damage, aboveground biomass, insecticide effects, deciduous forest, Missouri Ozarks

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