How did common ragweed (<i>Ambrosia artemisiifolia</i> L.) spread in Québec? A historical analysis using herbarium records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To reconstruct the spread of common ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.; Asteraceae) using herbarium specimens to document whether the habitat preferences of this plant have shifted through time. Location Southern Québec. Methods Herbarium specimens stored in the main herbaria of southern Québec were used to reconstruct the spread of common ragweed. All data (sampling location, year of sampling, habitat characteristics, etc.) were incorporated into a geographical information system. Maps indicating the spatial distribution of common ragweed were produced for four time periods. The cumulative number of locations was plotted against time to construct invasion curves. The sequence of habitats where herbarium specimens were collected was also reconstructed. Results A data base incorporating 707 common ragweed herbarium specimens was constructed for this study. The spread of common ragweed in most regions of southern Québec was initiated at the beginning of the 20th century. Herbarium specimens suggest that common ragweed first spread along river corridors. Specimens of common ragweed were not collected in agricultural fields before the mid‐1920s, nor along roads and railways before the mid‐1930s. The colonization of a large number of agricultural fields by common ragweed probably began with seed‐contaminated crops, but was certainly accelerated by the dispersal of seeds from populations growing along nearby roads. Main conclusions Herbarium specimens suggest that common ragweed has been present in southern Québec for at least 200 years, but the species was probably restricted to the Montréal area during the 19th century. It is likely that the development of the road network in Québec since the mid‐1930s significantly contributed to the spread of common ragweed. Controlling common ragweed solely in agricultural fields would not prevent the re‐infestation of crops, because roadsides would act as refuges for the weed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".