Post-dispersal losses to seed predators: an experimental comparison of native and exotic old field plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasions by exotic plants may be more likely if exotics have low rates of attack by natural enemies, including post-dispersal seed predators (granivores). We investigated this idea with a field experiment conducted near Newmarket, Ontario, in which we experimentally excluded vertebrate and terrestrial insect seed predators from seeds of 43 native and exotic old-field plants. Protection from vertebrates significantly increased recovery of seeds; vertebrate exclusion produced higher recovery than controls for 30 of the experimental species, increasing overall seed recovery from 38.2 to 45.6%. Losses to vertebrates varied among species, significantly increasing with seed mass. In contrast, insect exclusion did not significantly improve seed recovery. There was no evidence that aliens benefitted from a reduced rate of post-dispersal seed predation. The impacts of seed predators did not differ significantly between natives and exotics, which instead showed very similar responses to predator exclusion treatments. These results indicate that while vertebrate granivores had important impacts, especially on large-seeded species, exotics did not generally benefit from reduced rates of seed predation. Instead, differences between natives and exotics were small compared with interspecific variation within these groups.Key words: aliens, exotics, granivores, invaders, old fields, seed predators.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".