A comparative growth analysis between alien invader and native<i>Senecio</i>species with distinct distribution ranges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:A good way to check hypotheses that explain the invasion of ecosystems by exotic plants is to compare congeneric alien and native species. To test the hypothesis that alien invaders grow faster than natives, the maximum relative growth rate and its components were compared in controlled growth conditions between four Senecio species, two aliens introduced from southern Africa (S. inaequidens and S. pterophorus) and two European natives (S. malacitanus and S. jacobaea). The four species colonize similar habitats, but the frequency and abundance of their populations and their distribution ranges differ. The two aliens showed a higher relative growth rate than the natives, and although there were differences between species for leaf area ratio, leaf dry matter content, and dry matter partition between stems, leaves, and roots, no clear pattern was detected to explain the differences in growth rates: several combinations of the components of the relative growth rate can give similar results. The higher relative growth rate of the alien species, combined with other ecological and life-history traits, may enhance their invasive capacity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".