Insect herbivores increase mortality and reduce tree seedling growth of some species in temperate forest canopy gaps
PeerJ, ISSN: 2167-8359, Vol: 2017, Issue: 3, Page: e3102
2017
- 10Citations
- 33Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations10
- Citation Indexes10
- 10
- CrossRef1
- Captures33
- Readers33
- 33
Article Description
Insect herbivores help maintain forest diversity through selective predation on seedlings of vulnerable tree species. Although the role of natural enemies has been well-studied in tropical systems, relatively few studies have experimentally manipulated insect abundance in temperate forests and tracked impacts over multiple years. We conducted a three-year experiment (2012-2014) deterring insect herbivores from seedlings in new treefall gaps in deciduous hardwood forests in Maryland. During this study, we tracked recruitment of all tree seedlings, as well as survivorship and growth of 889 individual seedlings from five tree species: Acer rubrum, Fagus grandifolia, Fraxinus spp., Liriodendron tulipifera, and Liquidambar styraciflua. Insect herbivores had little effect on recruitment of any tree species, although there was a weak indication that recruitment of A. rubrum was higher in the presence of herbivores. Insect herbivores reduced survivorship of L. tulipifera, but had no significant effects on A. rubrum, Fraxinus spp., F. grandifolia, or L. styraciflua. Additionally, insects reduced growth rates of early pioneer species A. rubrum, L. tulipifera, and L. styraciflua, but had little effect on more shade-tolerant species F. grandifolia and Fraxinus spp. Overall, by negatively impacting growth and survivorship of early pioneer species, forest insects may play an important but relatively cryptic role in forest gap dynamics, with potentially interesting impacts on the overall maintenance of diversity.
Bibliographic Details
10.7717/peerj.3102; 10.7717/peerj.3102/fig-2; 10.7717/peerj.3102/table-1; 10.7717/peerj.3102/fig-3; 10.7717/peerj.3102/table-3; 10.7717/peerj.3102/supp-1; 10.7717/peerj.3102/table-2; 10.7717/peerj.3102/supp-2; 10.7717/peerj.3102/table-4; 10.7717/peerj.3102/fig-1
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85015931995&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28344904; https://peerj.com/articles/3102; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/fig-2; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/fig-2; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/table-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/table-1; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/fig-3; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/fig-3; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/table-3; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/table-3; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/supp-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/supp-1; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/table-2; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/table-2; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/supp-2; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/supp-2; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/table-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/table-4; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/fig-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3102/fig-1; https://peerj.com/articles/3102/; https://peerj.com/articles/3102.pdf; https://peerj.com/articles/3102.html
PeerJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know