MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does disturbance, competition or resource limitation underlie <i>Hieracium lepidulum</i> invasion in New Zealand? Mechanisms of establishment and persistence, and functional differentiation among invasive and native species

2009· article· en· W2114305522 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustral Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersUniversity of Otago
KeywordsEcologyBiologyDominance (genetics)Disturbance (geology)Introduced speciesCompetition (biology)Invasive speciesAlternative stable stateVegetation (pathology)Ecosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The processes underlying plant invasions have been the subject of much ecological research. Understanding mechanisms of plant invasions are difficult to elucidate from observations, yet are crucial for ecological management of invasions. Hieracium lepidulum , an asteraceous invader in New Zealand, is a species for which several explanatory mechanisms can be raised. Alternative mechanisms, including competitive dominance, disturbance of resident vegetation allowing competitive release or nutrient resource limitation reducing competition with the invader are raised to explain invasion. We tested these hypotheses in two field experiments which manipulated competitive, disturbance and nutrient environments in pre‐invasion and post‐invasion vegetation. H. lepidulum and resident responses to environmental treatments were measured to allow interpretation of underlying mechanisms of establishment and persistence. We found that H. lepidulum differed in functional response profile from native species. We also found that other exotic invaders at the sites were functionally different to H. lepidulum in their responses. These data support the hypothesis that different invaders use different invasion mechanisms from one another. These data also suggest that functional differentiation between invaders and native resident vegetation may be an important contributing factor allowing invasion. H. lepidulum appeared to have little direct competitive effect on post‐invasion vegetation, suggesting that competition was not a dominant mechanism maintaining its persistence. There was weak support for disturbance allowing initial establishment of H. lepidulum in pre‐invasion vegetation, but disturbance did not lead to invader dominance. Strong support for nutrient limitation of resident species was provided by the rapid competitive responses with added nutrients despite presence of H. lepidulum . Rapid competitive suppression of H. lepidulum once nutrient limitation was alleviated suggests that nutrient limitation may be an important process allowing the invader to dominate. Possible roles of historical site degradation and/or invader‐induced soil chemical/microbial changes in nutrient availability are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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