MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296957567 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2015-0259

No evidence for home-site advantage in the seedling establishment of the invasive <i>Lupinus polyphyllus</i> in Finland

2016· article· en· W2296957567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Satu Ramula

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsSeedlingBiologyLocal adaptationAdaptation (eye)PopulationPerennial plantPhenotypic plasticityRange (aeronautics)Invasive speciesBotanyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment success of an invasive species in its introduced range may be promoted by local adaptation and (or) phenotypic plasticity. Here, I tested for local adapation in the seedling establishment of the perennial herb Lupinus polyphyllus (Lindl.) in Finland, where the species has been invasive since the late 1800s. Reciprocal seed-sowing experiments conducted in multiple populations revealed that seedling establishment increased with the increasing genetic variation of the source population. However, there was no evidence for local adaptation when assessed in terms of seedling establishment; that is, establishment was not higher in the home population than in more distant populations located either in the same or in a different geographic region. Overall, these results suggest that the seedling establishment of L. polyphyllus is robust to changes in environmental conditions, and that genetic variation together with phenotypic plasticity — rather than local adaptation — may have contributed to its invasion success in this part of its introduced range.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207