Stable coexistence of an invasive plant and biocontrol agent: a parameterized coupled plant–herbivore model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Coupled plant–herbivore models, allowing feedback from plant to herbivore populations and vice versa, enable us to predict the impact of biocontrol agents on their target weed populations; however, they are rarely used in biocontrol studies. We describe the population biology of the invasive plant Echium plantagineum and the weevil Mogulones larvatus, a biocontrol agent, in Australia. In order to understand the dynamics of this plant–herbivore system, a series of coupled models of increasing complexity was developed. A simple model was extended to include a seed bank, density‐dependent plant fecundity, competition between weevil larvae and plant tolerance of herbivory, where below a threshold plants could compensate for larval feeding. Parameters and functional forms were estimated from experimental and field data. The plant model, in the absence of the weevil, exhibited stable dynamics and provided a good quantitative description of field densities before the weevil was introduced. In the coupled plant–herbivore model, density dependence in both plant fecundity and weevil larval competition stabilized the dynamics. Without larval competition the model was unstable, and plant tolerance of herbivory exacerbated this instability. This was a result of a time delay in plant response to herbivore densities. Synthesis and applications. The coupled plant–herbivore model allowed us to predict whether stable coexistence of target plant and biocontrol agents was achievable at an acceptable level. We found this to be the case for the Echium–Mogulones system and believe that similar models would be of use when assessing new agents in this and other invasive plant biocontrol systems. Density dependence in new biocontrol agents should be assessed in order to determine whether it is likely to result in the aims of classical biocontrol: low, stable and sustainable populations of plant and herbivore. Further work should be done to characterize the strength of density dependence according to the niche occupied by the biocontrol agent, for example the strength and functional form of density dependence in stem borers may be quite different to that of defoliators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".