Plant invasions, generalist herbivores, and novel defense weapons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One commonly accepted mechanism for biological invasions is that species, after introduction to a new region, leave behind their natural enemies and therefore increase in distribution and abundance. However, which enemies are escaped remains unclear. Escape from specialist invertebrate herbivores has been examined in detail, but despite the profound effects of generalist herbivores in natural communities their potential to control invasive species is poorly understood. We carried out parallel laboratory feeding bioassays with generalist invertebrate herbivores from the native (Europe) and from the introduced (North America) range using native and nonnative tetraploid populations of the invasive spotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe. We found that the growth of North American generalist herbivores was far lower when feeding on C. stoebe than the growth of European generalists. In contrast, North American and European generalists grew equally well on European and North American tetraploid C. stoebe plants, lending no support for an evolutionary change in resistance of North American tetraploid C. stoebe populations against generalist herbivores. These results suggest that biogeographical differences in the response of generalist herbivores to novel plant species have the potential to affect plant invasions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".