Biogeographical contrasts to assess local and regional patterns of invasion: a case study with two reciprocally introduced exotic maple trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative comparisons of distribution and abundance of exotic species in their native and non‐native ranges represent a first step when studying invaders. However, this approach is rarely applied 2 particularly to tree species. Using biogeographical contrasts coupled with regional dispersal surveys, we assessed whether two exotic maple tree species, Acer negundo and Acer platanoides , can be classified as invasive in the non‐native regions surveyed. We also examined the importance of biogeography in determining the degree of invasion by exotic species using this reciprocal approach. Local‐scale surveys were conducted in a total of 34 forests to compare density, relative abundance, age structure of native and introduced populations, and whether the two introduced maple species negatively affected native tree species density. Regional‐scale surveys of a total of 136 forests were then conducted to assess distribution in the introduced regions. Introduced populations of A. negundo were denser than populations measured in their native range and negatively related to native tree species density. Age structure did not differ between regions for this species. At the regional scale, this species has invaded most of the riparian corridors sampled in France. Conversely, the density of A. platanoides introduced populations was similar to that of native populations and was not related to native tree species density. Although seedling recruitment was higher away than at home, this species has invaded only 9% of the forests sampled in southern Ontario, Canada. Although reported invasive, these two exotic maple species differed in their relative demographic parameters and regional spread. Acer negundo is currently invasive in southern France while A. platanoides is not aggressively invasive in southern Ontario. Importantly, this study effectively demonstrates that biogeography through structured contrasts provide a direct means to infer invasion of exotic species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".