Plant introduction and extirpation in a small island park: Natural and anthropogenic rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a historical (40 y) floristic assessment of a small (4 km2) park in eastern Canada (Bonaventure Island National Park, Quebec) to evaluate whether small protected areas located in rural landscapes suffer declines in vascular plant populations. We hypothesized that the limited park access (an island accessible only by boat) has a greater influence than the size of the park per se on the preservation of the integrity of the flora. The island flora just before the creation of the protected area (1971) was compared to the flora surveyed during 2 consecutive summers (2007–2008). Of the 358 taxa that were identified before 1971, only 21 (6% of the total) were not found in 2007–2008; of these 21, all but 1 were native taxa, and 17 are likely extirpated, which represents a “natural” extirpation rate of about 1 taxon every 2 or 3 y. Twenty-four taxa found in 2007–2008 were apparently not present before 1971, 14 native taxa and 10 exotic taxa. This represents an introduction rate of 1 native and 1 exotic species every 2 or 3 y. The creation of the protected area did not totally prevent the extinction of native plants or the introduction of exotic species, but the island lost very few species during recent decades, at least compared to small urban parks where historical floristic assessments have been conducted. These urban parks were visited much more frequently than the island, which probably accounts for most of the differences. Strict regulations for visiting the island are apparently an excellent tool for preventing plant introduction (or extirpation), although they are by no means a barrier against the most invasive 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".