dc.creatorRomero G.Q.
dc.creatorKoricheva J.
dc.date2011
dc.date2015-06-30T20:41:33Z
dc.date2015-11-26T14:53:34Z
dc.date2015-06-30T20:41:33Z
dc.date2015-11-26T14:53:34Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T22:05:30Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T22:05:30Z
dc.identifier
dc.identifierJournal Of Animal Ecology. , v. 80, n. 3, p. 696 - 704, 2011.
dc.identifier218790
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01808.x
dc.identifierhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79953305654&partnerID=40&md5=ba4a60a77689f99a0960796591ad4f22
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/108903
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/108903
dc.identifier2-s2.0-79953305654
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1254989
dc.description1.Although carnivores indirectly improve plant fitness by decreasing herbivory, they may also decrease plant reproduction by disrupting plant-pollinator mutualism. The overall magnitude of the resulting net effect of carnivores on plant fitness and the factors responsible for the variations in strength and direction of this effect have not been explored quantitatively to date. 2.We performed a meta-analysis of 67 studies containing 163 estimates of the effects of carnivores on plant fitness and examined the relative importance of several potential sources of variation in carnivore effects. 3.Carnivores significantly increased plant fitness via suppression of herbivores and decreased fitness by consuming pollinators. The overall net effect of carnivores on plant fitness was positive (32% increase), indicating that effects via herbivores were stronger than effects via pollinators. 4.Parasitoids had stronger positive effect on plant fitness than predators. Active hunters increased plant fitness, whereas stationary predators had no significant effect, presumably because they were more prone to disrupt plant-pollinator mutualism. Carnivores with broader habitat domain had negative effects on plant fitness, whereas those with narrow habitat domain had positive effects. 5.Predator effects were positive for plants which offered rewards (e.g. extrafloral nectaries) and negative for plants which lacked any attractors. 6.This study adds new knowledge on the factors that determine the strength of terrestrial trophic cascades and highlights the importance of considering simultaneous contrasting interactions in the same study system. © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2011 British Ecological Society.
dc.description80
dc.description3
dc.description696
dc.description704
dc.descriptionAltshuler, D.L., Novel interactions of non-pollinating ants with pollinators and fruit consumers in a tropical forest (1999) Oecologia, 119, pp. 600-606
dc.descriptionBell, T., Neill, W.E., Schluter, D., The effect of temporal scale on the outcome of trophic cascade experiments (2003) Oecologia, 134, pp. 578-586
dc.descriptionBorer, E.T., Seabloom, E.W., Shurin, J.B., Anderson, K.E., Blanchette, C.A., Broitman, B., Cooper, S.D., Halpern, B.S., What determines the strength of a trophic cascade? (2005) Ecology, 86, pp. 528-537
dc.descriptionBrechbühl, R., Kropf, C., Bacher, S., Impact of flower-dwelling crab spiders on plant-pollinator mutualisms (2010) Basic and Applied Ecology, 11, pp. 76-82
dc.descriptionColey, P.D., Barone, J.A., Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests (1996) Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 27, pp. 305-335
dc.descriptionCooper, H., (1998) Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Review, p. 201. , 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
dc.descriptionDukas, R., Bumble bee predators reduce pollinator density and plant fitness (2005) Ecology, 86, pp. 1401-1406
dc.descriptionDukas, R., Morse, D.H., Crab spiders show mixed effects on flower-visiting bees and no effect on plant fitness components (2005) Ecoscience, 12, pp. 244-247
dc.descriptionDyer, L.A., Coley, P.D., Tritrophic interactions in tropical versus temperate Communities (2002) Multitrophic Level Interactions, pp. 67-88. , (eds T. Tscharntke & B.A. Hawkins) - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 283pp
dc.descriptionGonçalves-Souza, T., Omena, P.M., Souza, J.C., Romero, G.Q., Trait-mediated effects on flowers: artificial spiders deceive pollinators and decrease plant fitness (2008) Ecology, 89, pp. 2407-2413
dc.descriptionGurevitch, J., Hedges, L.V., Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses (1999) Ecology, 80, pp. 1142-1149
dc.descriptionGurevitch, J., Hedges, L.V., Meta-analysis: combining the results of independent experiments (2001) Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, pp. 347-369. , eds S.M. Scheiner & J. Gurevitch) - Oxford University Press, New York
dc.descriptionHairston, N.G., Smith, F.E., Slobodkin, L.B., Community structure, population control, and competition (1960) American Naturalist, 44, pp. 421-425
dc.descriptionHalaj, J., Wise, D.H., Terrestrial trophic cascades: how much do they trickle? (2001) American Naturalist, 157, pp. 262-281
dc.descriptionHedges, L.V., Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P.S., The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology (1999) Ecology, 80, pp. 1150-1156
dc.descriptionHedges, L.V., Olkin, I., (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, , Academic Press, Boston, MA
dc.descriptionHeil, M., Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions (2008) New Phytologist, 178, pp. 41-61
dc.descriptionHoeksema, J.D., Chaudhary, V.B., Gehring, C.A., Johnson, N.C., Karst, J., Koide, R.T., Pringle, A., Umbanhowar, J., A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi (2010) Ecology Letters, 13, pp. 394-407
dc.descriptionIngs, T.C., Chittka, L., Predator crypsis enhances behaviourally-mediated indirect effects on plants by altering bumblebee foraging preferences (2009) Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, pp. 2031-2036
dc.descriptionKnight, T.M., McCoy, M.W., Chase, J.M., McCoy, K.A., Holt, R.D., Trophic cascades across ecosystems (2005) Nature, 437, pp. 880-883
dc.descriptionKnight, T.M., Chase, J.M., Hillebrand, H., Holt, R.D., Predation on mutualists can reduce the strength of trophic cascades (2006) Ecology Letters, 9, pp. 1173-1178
dc.descriptionKoricheva, J., Meta-analysis of sources of variation in fitness costs of plant antiherbivore defenses (2002) Ecology, 83, pp. 176-190
dc.descriptionLarson, B.M.H., Barrett, S.C.H., A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants (2000) Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 69, pp. 503-520
dc.descriptionLima, S.L., Energy, predators and the behavior of feeding hummingbirds (1991) Evolutionary Ecology, 5, pp. 220-230
dc.descriptionLouda, S.M., Influorescence spider: a cost/benefit analysis for the host plant, Haplopappus venetus Blake (Asteraceae) (1982) Oecologia, 55, pp. 185-191
dc.descriptionMorse, D.H., (2007) Predator Upon a Flower: Life History and Fitness in a Crab Spider, , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
dc.descriptionNorment, C.J., The effect of nectar-thieving ants on the reproductive success of Frasera speciosa (Gentianaceae) (1988) American Midland Naturalist, 120, pp. 331-336
dc.descriptionPolis, G.A., Why are parts of the world green? Multiple factors control productivity and the distribution of biomass (1999) Oikos, 86, pp. 3-15
dc.descriptionPreisser, E.L., Orrock, J.L., Schmitz, O.J., Predator hunting mode and habitat domain alter nonconsumptive effects in predator-prey interactions (2007) Ecology, 88, pp. 2744-2751
dc.descriptionPrimack, R.B., Longevity of individual flowers (1985) Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, pp. 15-37
dc.descriptionRico-Gray, V., Oliveira, P.S., (2007) The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions, p. 346. , The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
dc.descriptionRomero, G.Q., Benson, W.W., Biotic interactions of mites, plants and leaf domatia (2005) Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 8, pp. 436-440
dc.descriptionRomero, G.Q., Souza, J.C., Vasconcellos-Neto, J., Antiherbivore protection by mutualistic spiders and the role of plant glandular trichomes (2008) Ecology, 89, pp. 3105-3115
dc.descriptionRomero, G.Q., Vasconcellos-Netor, J., Beneficial effects of flower-dwelling predators on their host plant (2004) Ecology, 85, pp. 446-457
dc.descriptionRosenberg, M.S., Adams, D.C., Gurevitch, J., (2000) MetaWin: Statistical Software for Meta-Analysis, , Version 2.0. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA
dc.descriptionRosumek, F.B., Silveira, F.A.O., Neves, F.S., Barbosa, N.P.U., Diniz, L., Oki, Y., Pezzini, F., Cornelissen, T., Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses (2009) Oecologia, 160, pp. 537-549
dc.descriptionRutter, M.T., Rausher, M.D., Natural selection on extrafloral nectar production in Chamaecrista fasciculata: the costs and benefits of a mutualism trait (2004) Evolution, 58, pp. 2657-2668
dc.descriptionSchemske, D.W., Mittelbach, G.G., Cornell, H.V., Sobel, J.M., Roy, K., Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? (2009) Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 40, pp. 245-269
dc.descriptionSchmitz, O.J., Predator diversity and trophic interactions (2007) Ecology, 88, pp. 2415-2426
dc.descriptionSchmitz, O.J., Ecosystem function effects of predator hunting mode on grassland (2008) Science, 319, pp. 952-954
dc.descriptionSchmitz, O.J., Hambäck, P.A., Beckerman, A.P., Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removal on plants (2000) American Naturalist, 155, pp. 141-153
dc.descriptionSchmitz, O.J., Suttle, K.B., Effects of top predator species on the nature of indirect effects in an old field food web (2001) Ecology, 82, pp. 2072-2081
dc.descriptionSendoya, S., Freitas, A.V.L., Oliveira, P.S., Egg-laying butterflies distinguish predaceous ants by sight (2009) American Naturalist, 174, pp. 134-140
dc.descriptionShurin, J.B., Gruner, D.S., Hillebrand, H., All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs (2006) Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, pp. 1-9
dc.descriptionShurin, J.B., Borer, E.T., Seabloom, E.W., Anderson, K., Blanchette, C.A., Broitman, B., Cooper, S.D., Halpern, B.S., A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades (2002) Ecology Letters, 5, pp. 785-791
dc.descriptionStrong, D.R., Are trophic cascades all wet? Differentiation and donor-control in speciose ecosystems (1992) Ecology, 73, pp. 747-754
dc.descriptionStyrsky, J.D., Eubanks, M.D., Ecological consequences of interactions between ants and honeydew-producing insects (2007) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 274, pp. 151-164
dc.descriptionSuttle, K.B., Pollinators as mediators of top-down effects on plants (2003) Ecology Letters, 6, pp. 688-694
dc.descriptionWhitney, K.D., Experimental evidence that both parties benefit in a facultative plant-spider mutualism (2004) Ecology, 85, pp. 1642-1650
dc.descriptionWillmer, P.G., Nuttman, C.V., Raine, N.E., Stone, G.N., Pattrick, J.G., Henson, K., Stillman, P., Knudsen, J.T., Floral volatiles controlling ant behaviour (2009) Functional Ecology, 23, pp. 888-900
dc.descriptionZar, J.H., (1996) Biostatistical Analysis, p. 662. , Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
dc.languageen
dc.publisher
dc.relationJournal of Animal Ecology
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceScopus
dc.titleContrasting Cascade Effects Of Carnivores On Plant Fitness: A Meta-analysis
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución