MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Searching for non‐indigenous species: rapidly delimiting the invasion boundary

2010· article· en· W1905371945 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Leung, Oscar J. Cacho, Daniel Spring

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsBiological dispersalEcologyRange (aeronautics)HabitatLandscape connectivityInvasive speciesIntroduced speciesBoundary (topology)GeographyBiologyPopulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim At first detection, little information is typically known about an invader’s characteristics, true arrival date or spatial extent. Yet, before management options such as control or eradication can be considered, we need to know where a nuisance species has already spread. This is particularly difficult because of stochastic processes. Here, we develop an approach that requires little a priori information, yet accurately delimits the range of a biological invader. Location We used a simulated landscape, subjected to stochasticity inherent in establishment and spread, to test novel theory for delimiting locally spreading populations. Methods We distinguish three stages to identify the boundary of an invasion, which we term Approach, Decline, Delimit (ADD). Our ADD algorithm uses general characteristics of the invasion pattern, obtained during a search for occupied sites, in combination with sampling and probability theory to delimit the invasion. We compare ADD against four naïve delimitation strategies, for long and normal dispersal kernels. Results Our results illustrate the potential difficulty in delimiting invasions. Naïve strategies, such as stopping when the invader is absent, typically failed to properly delimit the invasion. In contrast, ADD operated relatively efficiently, and was robust to habitat heterogeneity and knowledge of the true epicentre, but was sensitive to the sparseness of the invasion. For long‐distance dispersal kernels, ADD had 80% accurate delimitations when c. 5% or more of the cells were occupied within the invasion boundary; for normal dispersal kernels, ADD had 95% accurate delimitations when c. 2.5% or more of the cells were occupied. Main conclusions There is virtually no existing theory for delimiting invasions. ADD is efficient and accurate, even with unknown time of invasion, unknown dispersal kernels, stochastic establishment dynamics and spatial heterogeneity, except for very low invasion densities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207