Factors that limit the emergence and establishment of the related aliens <i>Senecio</i> <i>inaequidens</i> and <i>Senecio pterophorus</i> and the native <i>Senecio malacitanus</i> in Mediterranean climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three series of seed addition experiments in natural sites and in common experimental conditions are described to compare the effect of disturbance, water availability, and habitat type on the emergence and establishment of the two alien congeners Senecio inaequidens D.C. and Senecio pterophorus D.C. and the native Senecio malacitanus Huter. The emergence of the three species was favored by disturbance, while establishment was enhanced by water availability. Habitat also had a dramatic effect on emergence, with more seedlings germinating under the shrubs and in the forest. However, only the plants that emerged in the open annual grassland survived until the adult stage, some of which flowered, mostly S. inaequidens. The emergence of the alien S. pterophorus was lower than that of the other species, but once established it produced significantly more biomass than the others. The effect of disturbance and water availability on emergence and establishment does not explain the differences in invasive capacity between the two aliens and the native; however, some traits, such as the biomass production of S. pterophorus and the early flowering of S. inaequidens, can contribute to the capacity of the two aliens to colonize new habitats.Key words: Senecio, alien invasive, emergence, disturbance, water addition, seed or site limitation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".