Does the invader <i>Hieracium lepidulum</i> have a comparative growth advantage over co‐occurring plants? High leaf area and low metabolic costs as invasive traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High leaf area has been associated statistically with plant invasiveness, but few studies have quantified metabolic costs of this trait. We have little information on whether high leaf area provides a universal growth advantage or an advantage only under limited conditions. We ask, do invasive Hieracium lepidulum and co‐occurring aliens in New Zealand have higher leaf area and lower metabolic tissue costs than co‐occurring native species? Invasive and co‐occurring plants were grown under standard conditions across a resource availability gradient and leaf area ratio (LAR) estimated. To quantify metabolic costs of above‐ and below‐ground plant tissues, construction costs based on heat of combustion (Wg), plant ash, and nitrogen content (Vg) were measured. Leaf longevity was measured as an index of nutrient use and metabolic efficiency. Hieracium lepidulum and invaders overall did have higher LAR than cooccurring native plant species. Tissue construction costs overlapped among invaders and native species; however, unlike in native species, tissue construction costs in both invaders were reduced at lower nutrient resource levels. This suggests that there would not be a universal growth advantage for invaders, rather there would be more pronounced growth advantage at lower nutrient resource levels. This is discussed in terms of the ecological context within which H. lepidulum and its co‐occurring species are found.
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".