MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Herbivory, time since introduction and the invasiveness of exotic plants

2005· article· en· W2026050992 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Carpenter, Naomi Cappuccino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsHerbivoreBiologyInvasive speciesResistance (ecology)EcologyIntroduced speciesNative plantCompetition (biology)Plant tolerance to herbivoryAllelopathyBotanyGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We tested the enemy release hypothesis for invasiveness using field surveys of herbivory on 39 exotic and 30 native plant species growing in natural areas near Ottawa, Canada, and found that exotics suffered less herbivory than natives. For the 39 introduced species, we also tested relationships between herbivory, invasiveness and time since introduction to North America. Highly invasive plants had significantly less herbivory than plants ranked as less invasive. Recently arrived plants also tended to be more invasive; however, there was no relationship between time since introduction and herbivory. Release from herbivory may be key to the success of highly aggressive invaders. Low herbivory may also indicate that a plant possesses potent defensive chemicals that are novel to North America, which may confer resistance to pathogens or enable allelopathy in addition to deterring herbivorous insects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations192
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EcologySame topicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsFrench-language works237,207