How different would a world without herbivory be?: A search for generality in ecology

David S. Bigger, Michelle A. Marvier
{"title":"How different would a world without herbivory be?: A search for generality in ecology","authors":"David S. Bigger,&nbsp;Michelle A. Marvier","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1520-6602(1998)1:2<60::AID-INBI4>3.0.CO;2-Z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The conventional wisdom of most ecologists is that herbivores are generally incapable of strongly affecting plant populations in natural communities. Thus, ecologists have largely focused on the role of competition for limited resources but have ignored herbivory as a primary factor determining plant success. Here, we present a quantitative review of herbivore manipulations and find that herbivores do exert important effects on plant biomass—equally as important as those of plant competition. This result should alter the way plant communities are investigated. Furthermore, we find that the effects of invertebrate herbivores are significantly stronger than those of vertebrates; this is in contrast to widely held views. Quantitative syntheses of accumulated studies, such as the one presented here, can provide surprising answers to a broad scope of biological questions. This is especially important in fields lacking a strong theoretical basis, in which generalities are born from empiricism rather than deductive theorizing.</p>","PeriodicalId":100679,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6602(1998)1:2<60::AID-INBI4>3.0.CO;2-Z","citationCount":"86","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6602%281998%291%3A2%3C60%3A%3AAID-INBI4%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 86

Abstract

The conventional wisdom of most ecologists is that herbivores are generally incapable of strongly affecting plant populations in natural communities. Thus, ecologists have largely focused on the role of competition for limited resources but have ignored herbivory as a primary factor determining plant success. Here, we present a quantitative review of herbivore manipulations and find that herbivores do exert important effects on plant biomass—equally as important as those of plant competition. This result should alter the way plant communities are investigated. Furthermore, we find that the effects of invertebrate herbivores are significantly stronger than those of vertebrates; this is in contrast to widely held views. Quantitative syntheses of accumulated studies, such as the one presented here, can provide surprising answers to a broad scope of biological questions. This is especially important in fields lacking a strong theoretical basis, in which generalities are born from empiricism rather than deductive theorizing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个没有食草动物的世界会有什么不同?对生态学共性的探索
大多数生态学家的传统观点是,食草动物通常不能对自然群落中的植物种群产生强烈影响。因此,生态学家也主要集中在对有限资源的竞争的作用而忽略了食草性主要因素确定植物的成功。在这里,我们提出一个定量评估的食草动物操作和发现食草动物对植物biomass-equally起到重要作用一样重要的植物竞争。这一结果将改变调查植物群落的方式。此外,我们发现无脊椎食草动物的影响明显强于脊椎动物;这与人们普遍持有的观点相反。对积累的研究进行定量综合,就像这里展示的那样,可以为广泛的生物学问题提供令人惊讶的答案。这在缺乏强有力的理论基础的领域尤其重要,在这些领域中,概括性来自经验主义,而不是演绎的理论化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nature in a bottle? Integrating behavior with neurobiology: Odor-mediated moth flight and olfactory discrimination by glomerular arrays We are sponges: Phylogenetic systematics is getting a tad silly Message in a bottle? Utility and limitations of recent ecological bottle experiments A new model for olfactory imprinting in salmon
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1