Can enemy release explain the invasion success of the diploid Leucanthemum vulgare in North America?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enemy release is a commonly accepted mechanism to explain plant invasions. Both the diploidLeucanthemum vulgareand the morphologically very similar tetraploidLeucanthemum ircutianumhave been introduced into North America. To verify which species is more prevalent in North America we sampled 98Leucanthemumpopulations and determined their ploidy level. Although polyploidy has repeatedly been proposed to be associated with increased invasiveness in plants, only two of the populations surveyed in North America were the tetraploidL. ircutianum. We tested the enemy release hypothesis by first comparing 20 populations ofL. vulgareand 27 populations ofL. ircutianumin their native range in Europe, and then comparing the EuropeanL. vulgarepopulations with 31L. vulgarepopulations sampled in North America. Characteristics of the site and associated vegetation, plant performance and invertebrate herbivory were recorded. In Europe, plant height and density of the two species were similar butL. vulgareproduced more flower heads thanL. ircutianum.Leucanthemum vulgarein North America was 17 % taller, produced twice as many flower heads and grew much denser compared toL. vulgarein Europe. Attack rates by root- and leaf-feeding herbivores onL. vulgarein Europe (34 and 75 %) was comparable to that onL. ircutianum(26 and 71 %) but higher than that onL. vulgarein North America (10 and 3 %). However, herbivore load and leaf damage were low in Europe. Cover and height of the co-occurring vegetation was higher inL. vulgarepopulations in the native than in the introduced range, suggesting that a shift in plant competition may more easily explain the invasion success ofL. vulgarethan escape from herbivory.
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".