Dynamics of the range of lily leaf beetle (Lilioceris lilii, Chrysomelidae, Coleoptera) indicates its invasion from Asia to Europe in the 16th–17th century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analysis of 415 locations of Lilioceris lilii (Scopoli, 1763), a pest of ornamental liliaceous, allowed tracing the dynamics of the species range in Eurasia from the 18th century to the present. Now the area of distribution is a continuous band across the whole continent, from Portugal to the Khabarovsk krai, but until the end of the 19th century, the range was disjunctive. It consisted of two large subranges: European and Asian. There was a gap of about 2000 km between them. The easternmost of the known European locations of the 19th century lies in Voronezh oblast, while the far west of the Asian location is in the vicinity of Omsk. In Asia, the species ranged in Siberia, the Far East, and northern China. Taking into account the Asian origin of host plants of the lily beetle, as well as the genus Lilioceris in general, it can be assumed that the European subrange is secondary, invasive. The disjunctive range could hardly be of relict origin, since L. lilii can quickly establish and develop vast territories in decades. This ability of the lily beetle is evidenced by the distribution of this invasive species in Britain, Canada, and the United States. From the literature, it is known that in 1688 the lily beetle already inhabited Western Europe, and Siberian species of lilies were first brought there in 1596. Apparently, the pest was introduced together with planting material in this time interval. By the mid-20th century, L. lilii had settled in the Volga region, the Urals, and the south of Western Siberia. Thus, the range gap virtually ceased to exist. In recent decades, the range in the European part of Russia has expanded to the north and northeast. By now, the lily leaf beetle has populated even some areas where its host plants are found only as cultivated or adventive plants.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".