The latitudinal herbivory hypothesis revisited: To be part is to be whole

As the big data accumulation in ecology picks up pace, we now have the opportunity to test several macroecological hypotheses, such as the latitudinal herbivory hypothesis (LHH) dated from the 1990s. The LHH proposes that plant–herbivore interactions decrease as latitude increases, that is, from lower latitudinal areas (i.e., the equator) to higher latitudinal areas (i.e., the poles). This hypothesis has been challenged in recent years. In this study, we used the greatest volume dataset of leaf herbivory from the study of Zhang et al. (Journal of Ecology, 104, 2016, 1089) to test the LHH at a global scale, based on a quantile regression model. We found that the mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and potential net primary production were heterogeneously correlated with herbivory at different quantiles or variable intervals. Although the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and the global‐scale trends are in accordance with the expected latitudinal variation, the Southern Hemisphere (SH) was found to exhibit inverse trends. The latitude has a negative effect on plant–herbivore interactions in the NH and on a global scale; leaf herbivory decreased more at a given latitude in higher latitudinal areas, which is attributed to harsher survival conditions in these areas. The uniformity of leaf herbivory variability along the climate and latitude gradient in the NH and on a global scale motivates that the loosening of this herbivory variability in the SH is not significant enough to dismiss the prevalence of the LHH, a testable macroecology hypothesis.