Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: A meta-analysis

Ecology

Volumn 88, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 1021-1029

  Morris, William F ^a   Hufbauer, Ruth A ^b   Agrawal, Anurag A ^c   Bever, James D ^d   Borowicz, Victoria A ^e   Gilbert, Gregory S ^f   Maron, John L ^g   Mitchell, Charles E ^h   Parker, Ingrid M ^f   Power, Alison G ^c   Torchin, Mark E ⁱ   Vaźquez, Diego P ^j  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^c Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

ⁱ SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^j LABORATORIO DE ENTOMOLOGÍA   (Argentina)

more..

Author keywords

Factorial experiment; Hedges' d; Herbivore; Interaction effect; Log response ratio; Metaanalysis; Mutualist; Natural enemy; Pathogen; Plant performance

Indexed keywords

HERBIVORY; HOST-PATHOGEN INTERACTION; META-ANALYSIS; MUTUALISM; NATURAL ENEMY; PATHOGEN; PLANT-HERBIVORE INTERACTION; PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; ECOSYSTEM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; META ANALYSIS; MICROBIOLOGY; MYCORRHIZA; PARASITOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; ECOSYSTEM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MYCORRHIZAE; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; PLANTS; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SOIL MICROBIOLOGY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS); FUNGI;

EID: 34247384227     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/06-0442     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bigger, D. S., and M. A. Marvier. 1998. How different would a world without herbivory be? A search for generality in ecology. Integrative Biology 1:60-67.
2. Borowicz, V. A. 2001. Do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi alter plant-pathogen relations? Ecology 82:3057-3068.
3. Bronstein, J. L., and P. Barbosa. 2002. Multi-trophic/multispecies mutualistic interactions: the role of non-mutualists in shaping and mediating mutualisms. Pages 44-65 in B. Hawkins and T. Tscharntke, editors. Multitrophic level interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
4. Denoth, M., L. Frid, and J. H. Myers. 2002. Multiple agents in biological control: Improving the odds? Biological Control 24:20-30.
5. Garcia, M. B., and J. Ehrlén. 2002. Reproductive effort and herbivory timing in a perennial herb: fitness components at the individual and population levels. American Journal of Botany 89:1295-1302.
6. Goldberg, D. E., T. Rajaniemi, J. Gurevitch, and A. Stewart-Oaten. 1999. Empirical approaches to quantifying interaction intensity: competition and facilitation along productivity gradients. Ecology 80:1118-1131.
7. Gomez-Aparicio, L., R. Zamora, J. M. Gomez, J. A. Hodar, J. Castro, and E. Baraza. 2004. Applying plant facilitation to forest restoration: a meta-analysis of the use of shrubs as nurse plants. Ecological Applications 14:1128-1138.
8. Gurevitch, J., and L. V. Hedges. 2001. Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments. Pages 347-369 in S. M. Scheiner and J. Gurevitch, editors. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Second edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
9. Gurevitch, J., J. A. Morrison, and L. V. Hedges. 2000. The interaction between competition and predation: a metaanalysis of field experiments. American Naturalist 155:435-453.
10. Gurevitch, J., L. L. Morrow, A. Wallace, and J. S. Walsh. 1992. A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. American Naturalist 140:539-572.
11. Hamback, P. A., and A. P. Beckerman. 2003. Herbivory and plant resource competition: a review of two interacting interactions. Oikos 101:26-37.
12. Hawkes, C. V., and J. J. Sullivan. 2001. The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions: a metaanalysis. Ecology 82:2045-2058.
13. Hedges, L. V., J. Gurevitch, and P. S. Curtis. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150-1156.
14. Hedges, L. V., and I. Olkin. 1985. Statistical methods for metaanalysis. Academic Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
15. Hougen-Eitzman, D., and M. D. Rausher. 1994. Interactions between herbivorous insects and plant-insect coevolution. American Naturalist 143:677-697.
16. Inouye, B., and J. R. Stinchcombe. 2001. Relationships between ecological interaction modifications and diffuse coevolution: similarities, differences, and causal links. Oikos 95:353-360.
17. Irwin, R. E., A. K. Brody, and N. M. Waser. 2001. The impact of floral larceny on individuals, populations, and communities. Oecologia 129:161-168.
18. Iwao, K., and M. D. Rausher. 1997. Evolution of plant resistance to multiple herbivores: quantifying diffuse coevolution. American Naturalist 149:316-335.
19. Knight, T. M. 2004. The effect of herbivory and pollen limitation on a declining population of Trillium grandiflorum. Ecological Applications 14:915-928.
20. Lortie, C. J., and R. M. Callaway. 2006. Re-analysis of meta-analysis: support for the stress-gradient hypothesis. Journal of Ecology 94:7-16.
21. Maestre, F. T., F. Valladares, and J. F. Reynolds. 2005. Is the change of plant-plant interactions with abiotic stress predictable? A meta-analysis of field results in arid environments. Journal of Ecology 93:748-757.
22. Maestre, F. T., F. Valladares, and J. F. Reynolds. 2006. The stress-gradient hypothesis does not fit all relationships between plant-plant interactions and abiotic stress: further insights from arid environments. Journal of Ecology 94:17-22.
23. McEvoy, P. B., and E. M. Coombs. 1999. Biological control of plant invaders: regional patterns, field experiments, and structured population models. Ecological Applications 9:387-401.
24. Neill, W. 1974. The community matrix and interdependence of the competition coefficients. American Naturalist 108:399-408.
25. Rosenberg, M. S., K. A. Garrett, Z. Su, and R. L. Bowden. 2004. Meta-analysis in plant pathology: synthesizing research results. Phytopathology 94:1013-1017.
26. Sih, A., G. Englund, and D. Wooster. 1998. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:350-355.
27. Stanton, M. L. 2003. Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. American Naturalist 162:S10-S23.
28. Stinchcombe, J. R., and M. D. Rausher. 2001. Diffuse selection on resistance to deer herbivory in the ivyleaf morning glory, Ipomoea hederacea. American Naturalist 158:376-388.
29. Strauss, S. Y., and R. E. Irwin. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35:435-466.
30. Strauss, S. Y., H. Sahli, and J. K. Conner. 2005. Toward a more trait-centered approach to diffuse (co)evolution. New Phytologist 165:81-89.
31. Torchin, M. E., and C. E. Mitchell. 2004. Parasites, pathogens, and invasions by plants and animals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:183-190.
32. Wilbur, H. M. 1972. Competition, predation, and the structure of the Ambystoma-Rana sylvatica community. Ecology 53:3-21.
33. Wootton, J. T. 1993. Indirect effects and habitat use in an intertidal community - interaction chains and interaction modifications. American Naturalist 141:71-89.
34. Yeo, J. J. 2005. Effects of grazing exclusion on rangeland vegetation and soils, East Central Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 65:91-102.