Cited by 71Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesForest Insect Ecology and Management

Invertebrate Community Structure and Herbivory in a Tropical Rain Forest Canopy in Puerto Rico Following Hurricane Hugo

Schowalter, Timothy D.·1994·Biotropica

Abstract

At the Luquillo Experimental Forest, invertebrate community structure and herbivory were compared among tree species co-occurring in intact forest (standing trees) and canopy gaps. Lepidoptera, predaceous beetles, and decomposers were significantly more abundant in standing trees; whereas, some sap-sucking arthropods were more abundant in canopy gaps, indicating that these taxa responded to changes in microclimate and/or host condition resulting from disturbance. Herbivory and numbers of several taxa differed significantly among three species, likely reflecting host preferences based on foliage nutritional quality. -from Author

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2388853

Cites

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 simultaneous declines of all 10 arthropod taxa in the sweep samples, the 10 most-abundant taxa in Schowalter's canopy samples, and arthropods occupying all strata point to an overriding environmental factor that has had ubiquitous, adverse effects on forest arthropods regardless of taxonomic affiliation, stratum occupied, or type of niche exploited.

    “Second, the simultaneous declines of all 10 arthropod taxa in our sweep samples, the 10 most-abundant taxa in Schowalter’s (23) canopy samples, and arthropods occupying all strata of our forest study area, all point to an overriding environmental factor that has had ubiquitous, adverse effects on forest arthropods regardless of taxonomic affiliation, stratum occupied, or type of niche exploited.”
  • Analysis of Schowalter's canopy data revealed significant decreases in invertebrate abundance scaled with respect to foliage weight sampled between 1990 and 2010.

    “Analysis of Schowalter’s (23) canopy data also revealed significant decreases in invertebrate abundance, scaled with respect to foliage weight sampled between 1990 and 2010 (Fig. 5A), and a significant, nonlinear decline with increasing temperature (Fig. 5B).”
  • Analysis of Schowalter's canopy data revealed a significant, nonlinear decline in invertebrate abundance with increasing temperature.

    “Analysis of Schowalter’s (23) canopy data also revealed significant decreases in invertebrate abundance, scaled with respect to foliage weight sampled between 1990 and 2010 (Fig. 5A), and a significant, nonlinear decline with increasing temperature (Fig. 5B).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schowalter, T. D.
Corresponding author
Schowalter, Timothy D.
Venue
Biotropica
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1994-09
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
312
ISSN
0006-3606 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2313348566
Cited by
71
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biotropica (publishedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
invertebrate community structure, herbivory, Hurricane Hugo, canopy gaps, Lepidoptera, decomposers, host plant preference, microclimate, forest disturbance, Luquillo Experimental Forest

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