Coexistence of introduced and native common reed (<i>Phragmites australis</i>) in freshwater wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Invasive species are especially problematic when introduced into ecosystems with native congeners. The extent to which niches overlap in space determines whether the introduced species threatens the native one or the native species can escape competition or the effect of control. We compared the spatial distribution in relation to landscape and land-use/ land-cover variables of introduced and native Phragmites australis (common reed) in a landscape of protected freshwater wetlands in Quebec, Canada. Results showed that the wetlands still serve as refuges for native P. australis. At this stage of invasion, native and introduced P. australis occupy distinct spatial niches, the more abundant native type in low marsh and areas of lesser human impacts, the introduced one closer to roads and drier land covers. For now, native P. australis largely escapes competition, and the lack of spatial overlap could reduce opportunities for hybridization. Our study also suggests that invasion foci could still be controlled without endangering the native type. Whether the heterogeneous wetland conditions and the different spatial niches will be sufficient to allow long-term coexistence of native and introduced P. australis remains to be seen, but the situation needs to be closely monitored, especially in wetlands protected for biodiversity conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".