Alien Insects: Threats and Implications for Conservation of Galápagos Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alien species are the principal threat to the conservation of the Galápagos Islands, but little is known about the status of nonindigenous Galápagos insects and their effects on the biota. Currently, 463 alien insect species have probably been introduced to the Galápagos, an increase of 186 unintentional species introductions since an inventory in 1998. Alien insects now constitute 23% of the total insect fauna. Six species are known to be invasive and a threat to the biota: two species of fire ant and two wasps, a scale insect, and an ectoparasitic dipteran. The ecological impacts of the remaining species are unknown, making the prioritization of action for conservation management difficult. Thus, a newly developed and simple scoring system is presented to predict their potential invasiveness based on trophic functional role, distribution in Galápagos, and history of invasiveness elsewhere. An additional 52 species are predicted to be highly invasive. The endemic flora is most at risk because the largest proportion (42%) of the introduced species is herbivores. Plant populations are threatened principally by vectors of plant disease and by phloem and leaf feeders. Introduced predators and parasitoids (17%) may either be affecting, or have the potential to affect, the status of terrestrial invertebrate populations. At least 10% of the species are considered to be negligible threats to Galápagos ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".