Effects of invasive plant patch size and distance on the pollination and reproduction of native boreal plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In pollinator-limited ecosystems in the earliest stages of the invasion process, the effects of invasive plants on the pollination and reproduction of co-flowering native plants may be particularly sensitive to the distance between native and non-native plants. Our study tests how the distance from invasive plant patches affects the pollination and reproduction of two native boreal shrubs. We established circular sites with plots of flowering Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. and Rhododendron groenlandicum (Oeder) Kron and Judd spanning from 1 to 40 m from the site center. In 2011 and 2012, we added flowering non-native Melilotus albus Medik. to the center of sites in small patches (40 individuals) or large patches (120 individuals) and left other sites as controls. In some cases, the effects of M. albus were uniform across the 40 m distance, such as the change in V. vitis-idaea seed production when large patches of M. albus were added. In other cases, relationships with distance were found, and changes in percent pollination or seed production occurred most rapidly over the first 10 m from the patch. Our data supports the hypothesis that the detectable impact an invasive species has on the pollination of native species is affected by the spatial scale over which it is evaluated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".