The role of non‐native plants and vertebrates in defining patterns of compositional dissimilarity within and across continents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Human activities have led to the spread and establishment of increasing numbers of non‐native species. Here we assess whether non‐native plant and vertebrate species have affected species compositions within and across Europe and North America. We also assess the effects of intra‐continental species exchange using the example of vertebrates. Location European countries and North America (states in the contiguous United States and provinces of Canada). Methods We measured compositional dissimilarity of native and non‐native assemblages of vascular plants and vertebrates and related these patterns to climatic dissimilarity and geographical distance. We considered three categories of non‐native species (introduced after ad 1500), namely: those (1) originating outside of both continents, (2) native to one continent and non‐native to the other, and (3) native in a particular region of a continent but non‐native in another region. Results The presence of non‐native plants and vertebrates led to more homogeneous species compositions between continents and to less homogeneous species composition within Europe compared with the native assemblages. In North America, the presence of non‐native plants led to more homogeneous species compositions and the presence of non‐native vertebrates had no effect. Species compositions being more homogeneous than the native composition were found for the three categories of non‐native vertebrate species for both continents. Between continents, climate was a better predictor of compositional dissimilarity for non‐native plants, whereas for vertebrates the explanatory power of climate and geographical distance were comparable. By contrast, within continents, climate was a better predictor of compositional dissimilarity of both plants and vertebrates. Conclusions We found clear evidence for biotic homogenization as a consequence of species displacement. However, in relation to overall species richness this effect was rather small, indicating that floras and faunas are still quite distinct. Therefore, claiming that we already face homogeneous biotas might be premature, although clear indications are visible which should raise a note of caution, especially in the light of increasing globalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".