Suppression of reproductive characteristics of the invasive plant Mikania micrantha by sweet potato competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a means of biologically controlling Mikania micrantha H.B.K. in Yunnan, China, the influence of sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] on its reproductive characteristics was studied. The trial utilized a de Wit replacement series incorporating six ratios of sweet potato and M. micrantha plants in 25 m(2) plots over 2 years. RESULTS: Budding of M. micrantha occurred at the end of September; flowering and fruiting occurred from October to February. Flowering phenology of M. micrantha was delayed (P < 0.05), duration of flowering and fruiting was reduced (P < 0.05) and duration of bud formation was increased (P < 0.05) with increasing proportions of sweet potato. Reproductive allocation, reproductive investment and reproductive index of M. micrantha were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) with increasing sweet potato densities. Apidae bees, and Calliphoridae or Syrphidae flies were the most abundant visitors to M. micrantha flowers. Overall flower visits decreased (P < 0.05) as sweet potato increased. Thus the mechanism by which sweet potato suppressed sexual reproduction in M. micrantha was essentially two-fold: causing a delay in flowering phenology and reducing pollinator visits. The number, biomass, length, set rate, germination rate, and 1000-grain dry weight of M. micrantha seeds were suppressed (P < 0.05) by sweet potato competition. With proportional increases in sweet potato, sexual and asexual seedling populations of M. micrantha were significantly reduced (P < 0.05). The mortality of both seedling types increased (P < 0.05) with proportional increases in sweet potato. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that sweet potato significantly suppresses the reproductive ability of the invasive species M. micrantha, and is a promising alternative to traditional biological control and other methods of control. Planting sweet potato in conjunction with other control methods could provide a comprehensive strategy for managing M. micrantha. The scenario of controlling M. micrantha by utilizing a crop with a similar growth form may provide a useful model for similar management strategies in other systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".