Do vigour of introduced populations and escape from specialist herbivores contribute to invasiveness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Plant species may become invasive due to a lack of natural enemies (e.g. herbivores) in their introduced range. Absence of herbivores may result in selection for the loss of costly herbivore‐resistance traits, which are expected to show a trade‐off with vigour or competitive ability (the evolution of increased competitive ability, or EICA, hypothesis). We conducted a common garden experiment in Switzerland, in which we compared herbivore resistance and vigour of Senecio jacobaea plants exposed to the specialist flea beetle Longitarsus jacobaeae , for four populations originating within the native range (Europe), and four from regions where it had been introduced (New Zealand, USA) and was unaffected by L. jacobaeae . Our predictions were that, compared with plants from the native populations, plants from introduced populations would experience greater herbivory (due to loss of resistance traits), and exhibit more vigorous growth. As expected, we found that introduced S. jacobaea grew larger, and had greater reproductive output, than plants from the native range. Larger plants experienced more feeding damage, and introduced plants were consumed more even when size differences were controlled. Introduced plants also exhibited a greater relative ability to reproduce after damage was sustained, i.e. higher tolerance to herbivory. Contrary to predictions, however, plants from introduced populations had higher total pyrrolizidine alkaloid production (chemical defence against herbivores). Although plants from introduced ranges exhibited life‐history traits consistent with EICA predictions, similar phenotypes were common in one of the populations from the native range, suggesting that EICA may not fully explain the invasion success of S. jacobaea . Our results imply that increased competitive ability (vigour) of invasive plants may be associated with changes in resistance as well as tolerance to herbivory, and both types of anti‐herbivore defence may need to be examined simultaneously to advance our understanding of invasiveness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".