MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163976466 · doi:10.1890/04-0669

ARE INVASIVE SPECIES THE DRIVERS OR PASSENGERS OF CHANGE IN DEGRADED ECOSYSTEMS?

2005· article· en· W2163976466 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew S. MacDougall, Roy Turkington

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalCompetition (biology)EcologyBiologyHabitatInvasive speciesSeed dispersalBiomass (ecology)Introduced speciesEcosystemDisturbance (geology)Abundance (ecology)Perennial plantPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few invaded ecosystems are free from habitat loss and disturbance, leading to uncertainty whether dominant invasive species are driving community change or are passengers along for the environmental ride. The “driver” model predicts that invaded communities are highly interactive, with subordinate native species being limited or excluded by competition from the exotic dominants. The “passenger” model predicts that invaded communities are primarily structured by noninteractive factors (environmental change, dispersal limitation) that are less constraining on the exotics, which thus dominate. We tested these alternative hypotheses in an invaded, fragmented, and fire-suppressed oak savanna. We examined the impact of two invasive dominant perennial grasses on community structure using a reduction (mowing of aboveground biomass) and removal (weeding of above- and belowground biomass) experiment conducted at different seasons and soil depths. We examined the relative importance of competition vs. dispersal limitation with experimental seed additions. Competition by the dominants limits the abundance and reproduction of many native and exotic species based on their increased performance with removals and mowing. The treatments resulted in increased light availability and bare soil; soil moisture and N were unaffected. Although competition was limiting for some, 36 of 79 species did not respond to the treatments or declined in the absence of grass cover. Seed additions revealed that some subordinates are dispersal limited; competition alone was insufficient to explain their rarity even though it does exacerbate dispersal inefficiencies by lowering reproduction. While the net effects of the dominants were negative, their presence restricted woody plants, facilitated seedling survival with moderate disturbance (i.e., treatments applied in the fall), or was not the primary limiting factor for the occurrence of some species. Finally, the species most functionally distinct from the dominants (forbs, woody plants) responded most significantly to the treatments. This suggests that relative abundance is determined more by trade-offs relating to environmental conditions (long-term fire suppression) than to traits relating to resource capture (which should most impact functionally similar species). This points toward the passenger model as the underlying cause of exotic dominance, although their combined effects (suppressive and facilitative) on community structure are substantial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1,176
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207