Linking host plants to damage types in the fossil record of insect herbivory

IF 2.6 2区 地球科学 Q2 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Paleobiology Pub Date : 2023-01-09 DOI:10.1017/pab.2022.35
Sandra R. Schachat, Jonathan L. Payne, C. Kevin Boyce
{"title":"Linking host plants to damage types in the fossil record of insect herbivory","authors":"Sandra R. Schachat, Jonathan L. Payne, C. Kevin Boyce","doi":"10.1017/pab.2022.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Studies of insect herbivory on fossilized leaves tend to focus on a few, relatively simple metrics that are agnostic to the distribution of insect damage types among host plants. More complex metrics that link particular damage types to particular host plants have the potential to address additional ecological questions, but such metrics can be biased by sampling incompleteness due to the difficulty of distinguishing the true absence of a particular interaction from the failure to detect it—a challenge that has been raised in the ecological literature. We evaluate a range of methods for characterizing the relationships between damage types and host plants by performing resampling and subsampling exercises on a variety of datasets. We found that the components of beta diversity provide a more valid, reliable, and interpretable method for comparing component communities than do bipartite network metrics and that the rarefaction of interactions represent a valid, reliable, and interpretable method for comparing compound communities. Both beta diversity and rarefaction of interactions avoid the potential pitfalls of multiple comparisons. Finally, we found that the host specificity of individual damage types is challenging to assess. Whereas bipartite network metrics are sufficiently biased by sampling incompleteness to be inappropriate for fossil herbivory data, alternatives exist that are perfectly suitable for fossil datasets with sufficient sample coverage.","PeriodicalId":54646,"journal":{"name":"Paleobiology","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paleobiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2022.35","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Studies of insect herbivory on fossilized leaves tend to focus on a few, relatively simple metrics that are agnostic to the distribution of insect damage types among host plants. More complex metrics that link particular damage types to particular host plants have the potential to address additional ecological questions, but such metrics can be biased by sampling incompleteness due to the difficulty of distinguishing the true absence of a particular interaction from the failure to detect it—a challenge that has been raised in the ecological literature. We evaluate a range of methods for characterizing the relationships between damage types and host plants by performing resampling and subsampling exercises on a variety of datasets. We found that the components of beta diversity provide a more valid, reliable, and interpretable method for comparing component communities than do bipartite network metrics and that the rarefaction of interactions represent a valid, reliable, and interpretable method for comparing compound communities. Both beta diversity and rarefaction of interactions avoid the potential pitfalls of multiple comparisons. Finally, we found that the host specificity of individual damage types is challenging to assess. Whereas bipartite network metrics are sufficiently biased by sampling incompleteness to be inappropriate for fossil herbivory data, alternatives exist that are perfectly suitable for fossil datasets with sufficient sample coverage.
将寄主植物与昆虫食草化石记录中的损害类型联系起来
昆虫对树叶化石的食草性研究往往集中在几个相对简单的指标上,这些指标与寄主植物中昆虫危害类型的分布无关。将特定损害类型与特定寄主植物联系起来的更复杂的指标有可能解决额外的生态问题,但由于难以区分特定相互作用的真正缺失与检测失败,这些指标可能因采样不完整性而存在偏差——这是生态学文献中提出的挑战。我们通过对各种数据集进行重采样和次采样练习,评估了一系列表征损害类型和寄主植物之间关系的方法。我们发现,与二部网络指标相比,beta多样性组分提供了一种更有效、更可靠、更可解释的比较组分群落的方法,而相互作用的稀疏性代表了一种有效、更可靠、更可解释的比较复合群落的方法。相互作用的多样性和稀缺性都避免了多重比较的潜在缺陷。最后,我们发现个体损伤类型的宿主特异性是具有挑战性的评估。然而,由于采样不完整,二部网络度量有足够的偏差,不适合化石食草数据,存在完全适合具有足够样本覆盖的化石数据集的替代方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Paleobiology
Paleobiology 地学-古生物学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
38
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Paleobiology publishes original contributions of any length (but normally 10-50 manuscript pages) dealing with any aspect of biological paleontology. Emphasis is placed on biological or paleobiological processes and patterns, including macroevolution, extinction, diversification, speciation, functional morphology, bio-geography, phylogeny, paleoecology, molecular paleontology, taphonomy, natural selection and patterns of variation, abundance, and distribution in space and time, among others. Taxonomic papers are welcome if they have significant and broad applications. Papers concerning research on recent organisms and systems are appropriate if they are of particular interest to paleontologists. Papers should typically interest readers from more than one specialty. Proposals for symposium volumes should be discussed in advance with the editors.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信