MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic differentiation in life-history traits of introduced and native common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) populations

2011· article· en· W2119488700 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn A. Hodgins, Loren H. Rieseberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbrosia artemisiifoliaBiologyRagweedAdaptation (eye)EcologyRange (aeronautics)Introduced speciesInvasive speciesLocal adaptationHerbivorePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduced species represent opportunities to observe evolution over contemporary time scales, and as exotics encounter new environments, adaptive responses can occur, potentially contributing to invasion. Here, we compare 22 native North American populations and 12 introduced European populations of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in five common gardens (control, herbivory, light stress, nutrient stress and drought). We found evidence for improved growth and reproduction of the introduced populations in most environments, particularly in the light stress. However, under drought conditions, the introduced plants experienced more rapid wilting and mortality than their native counterparts, evidence consistent with a life-history trade-off between rapid growth and drought tolerance. Moreover, we found parallel latitudinal clines in flowering time and correlations between fitness components and the local climate of the source populations in both ranges. Together these data provide evidence for adaptation to local environmental conditions in the native and introduced range of common ragweed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations116
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207