Understanding invasion history and predicting invasive niches using genetic sequencing technology in Australia: case studies from Cucurbitaceae and Boraginaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part of the challenge in dealing with invasive plant species is that they seldom represent a uniform, static entity. Often, an accurate understanding of the history of plant introduction and knowledge of the real levels of genetic diversity present in species and populations of importance is lacking. Currently, the role of genetic diversity in promoting the successful establishment of invasive plants is not well defined. Genetic profiling of invasive plants should enhance our understanding of the dynamics of colonization in the invaded range. Recent advances in DNA sequencing technology have greatly facilitated the rapid and complete assessment of plant population genetics. Here, we apply our current understanding of the genetics and ecophysiology of plant invasions to recent work on Australian plant invaders from the Cucurbitaceae and Boraginaceae. The Cucurbitaceae study showed that both prickly paddy melon (Cucumis myriocarpus) and camel melon (Citrullus lanatus) were represented by only a single genotype in Australia, implying that each was probably introduced as a single introduction event. In contrast, a third invasive melon, Citrullus colocynthis, possessed a moderate level of genetic diversity in Australia and was potentially introduced to the continent at least twice. The Boraginaceae study demonstrated the value of comparing two similar congeneric species; one, Echium plantagineum, is highly invasive and genetically diverse, whereas the other, Echium vulgare, exhibits less genetic diversity and occupies a more limited ecological niche. Sequence analysis provided precise identification of invasive plant species, as well as information on genetic diversity and phylogeographic history. Improved sequencing technologies will continue to allow greater resolution of genetic relationships among invasive plant populations, thereby potentially improving our ability to predict the impact of these relationships upon future spread and better manage invaders possessing potentially diverse biotypes and exhibiting diverse breeding systems, life histories and invasion histories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".