Long‐distance dispersal and high genetic diversity are implicated in the invasive spread of the common reed, <i>Phragmites australis</i> (Poaceae), in northeastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The Eurasian subspecies of the common reed (Phragmites australis subsp. australis, hereafter abbreviated as P. a. australis) was introduced to North America in the late 18(th) century and rapidly expanded its range, posing an ecological threat to wetlands. In this study, we aimed to determine whether admixture among multiple lineages, dispersal mechanisms, and high genetic diversity have contributed to the invasion of P. a. australis in the northeastern part of its range. Understanding mechanisms of the P. a. australis invasion will 1) contribute to a broader understanding of the factors that facilitate plant invasion, and 2) help us to develop effective management strategies for wetlands threatened by P. a. australis invasion. METHODS: We used a population genetics approach incorporating nine microsatellite loci to study genetic diversity and population structure in relation to biogeography of introduced North American Phragmites a. australis stands in the northeastern continental region. KEY RESULTS: Phragmites a. australis is genetically diverse in the region studied here. Significant population structure exists, and population structure is likely influenced by both long-distance dispersal via major waterways, and short-distance dispersal overland. Different lineages sometimes colonize geographically proximate locations leading to opportunities for admixture. Clonal reproduction likely exaggerates geographical structure among some stands, although high genetic and clonal diversity within some stands implies that sexual reproduction occurs frequently in P. a. australis. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of factors, including admixture among multiple lineages, multiple modes of dispersal, and plasticity in reproductive strategy promote the invasion success of Phragmites a. australis. Wetland managers in the St. Lawrence River/Great Lakes region should focus monitoring efforts on the shores of conservation lands to prevent the establishment of propagules from novel lineages.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".