A systematic review of arthropod community diversity in association with invasive plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive plants represent a significant financial burden for land managers and also have the potential to severely degrade ecosystems. Arthropods interact strongly with plants, relying on them for food, shelter, and as nurseries for their young. For these reasons, the impacts of plant invasions are likely strongly reflected by arthropod community dynamics including diversity and abundances. A systematic review was conducted to ascertain the state of the literature with respect to plant invaders and their associated arthropod communities. We found that the majority of studies did not biogeographically contrast arthropod community dynamics from both the home and away ranges and that studies were typically narrow in scope, focusing only on the herbivore feeding guild, rather than assessing two or more trophic levels. Importantly, relative arthropod richness was significantly reduced on invasive plant species. Phylogenetic differences between the invasive and local plant community as well as the plant functional group impact arthropod diversity patterns. A framework highlighting some interaction mechanisms between multiple arthropod trophic levels and native and invasive plants is discussed and future research directions relating to these interactions and the findings herein are proposed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".