Ecological and taxonomic differences between native and introduced plants of southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared taxonomic and ecological attributes of native and introduced plants (N = 1330 and 484 species, respectively) of southwestern Ontario, using two regional floras (Essex County and Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Municipality) for distributions, and published sources for ecological attributes. Most exotics (86.4%) originate from Europe and Asia. Exotic species tended to occur in families having just one-to-few species locally. Seven families (Amaranthaceae, Asteraceae, Boraginaceae, Brassicaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Fabaceae, and Malvaceae) were significantly over-represented by exotics compared to the distribution of native species in these families, while exotics were significantly under-represented in six families (Cyperaceae, Fagaceae, Juncaceae, Orchidaceae, Potamogetonaceae, and Ranunculaceae). In habitat comparisons, exotic species were significantly over-represented (compared to native species) in disturbed and degraded habitats and moist substrates, while being under-represented in woodland, thicket, and wetland. Introduced species of southwestern Ontario have life history traits that facilitate success in degraded, disturbed and highly fragmented environments. For example, exotics were significantly over-represented by the following life-history traits: short life span, flowering season of four or more months, hermaphrodite sex habit, and very small fruits (< 5 mm). They were significantly under-represented by the monoecious and dioecious sex habits, a flowering period of two months and less, animal-based seed dispersal, and relatively small fruits (5.1 - 10 mm). A separate analysis of exotic species found only in undisturbed communities, showed these species to be more likely to occur in open and moist habitats, to have a tree habit, and an extended flowering period, and to produce many seeds per fruit (> 7).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".