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 diploid Leucanthemum vulgare and the morphologically very similar tetraploid Leucanthemum ircutianum have been introduced into North America. To verify which species is more prevalent in North America we sampled 98 Leucanthemum populations 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 tetraploid L. ircutianum . We tested the enemy release hypothesis by first comparing 20 populations of L. vulgare and 27 populations of L. ircutianum in their native range in Europe, and then comparing the European L. vulgare populations with 31 L. vulgare populations 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 but L. vulgare produced more flower heads than L. ircutianum . Leucanthemum vulgare in North America was 17 % taller, produced twice as many flower heads and grew much denser compared to L. vulgare in Europe. Attack rates by root- and leaf-feeding herbivores on L. vulgare in Europe (34 and 75 %) was comparable to that on L. ircutianum (26 and 71 %) but higher than that on L. vulgare in 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 in L. vulgare populations in the native than in the introduced range, suggesting that a shift in plant competition may more easily explain the invasion success of L. vulgare than 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".