Evaluation of the growth response of six invasive species to past, present and future atmospheric carbon dioxide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response of plant species to future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO(2)] has been determined for hundreds of crop and tree species. However, no data are currently available regarding the response of invasive weedy species to past or future atmospheric [CO(2)]. In the current study, the growth of six species which are widely recognized as among the most invasive weeds in the continental United States, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis L.), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) were grown from seed at either 284, 380 or 719 micromol mol(-1) [CO(2)] until the onset of sexual reproduction (i.e. the vegetative period). The CO(2) concentrations corresponded roughly to the CO(2) concentrations which existed at the beginning of the 20th century, the current [CO(2)], and the future [CO(2)] projected for the end of the 21st century, respectively. The average stimulation of plant biomass among invasive species from current to future [CO(2)] averaged 46%, with the largest response (+72%) observed for Canada thistle. However, the growth response among these species to the recent [CO(2)] increase during the 20th century was significantly higher, averaging 110%, with Canada thistle again (+180%) showing the largest response. Overall, the CO(2)-induced stimulation of growth for these species during the 20th century (285-382 micromol mol(-1)) was about 3x greater than for any species examined previously. Although additional data are needed, the current study suggests the possibility that recent increases in atmospheric CO(2) during the 20th century may have been a factor in the selection of these 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".