MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560244927 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12849

Invader Relative Impact Potential: a new metric to understand and predict the ecological impacts of existing, emerging and future invasive alien species

2016· article· en· W2560244927 on OpenAlexaff
Jaimie T. A. Dick, Ciaran Laverty, Jack J. Lennon, Daniel Barrios‐O’Neill, Paul J. Mensink, J. Robert Britton, Vincent Médoc, Pieter Boets, Mhairi E. Alexander, Nigel G. Taylor, Alison M. Dunn, Melanie J. Hatcher, Paula J. Rosewarne, Steven Crookes, Hugh J. MacIsaac, Meng Xu, Anthony Ricciardi, Ryan J. Wasserman, Bruce R. Ellender, Olaf L. F. Weyl, Frances Lucy, Peter B. Banks, Jennifer A. Dodd, Calum MacNeil, Marcin R. Penk, David C. Aldridge, J. M. Caffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersBritish Ecological SocietyNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKAgence Nationale de la RechercheEcological Society of America
KeywordsTrophic levelEcologyInvasive speciesIntroduced speciesBiologyRange (aeronautics)Abundance (ecology)Metric (unit)Herbivore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Predictions of the identities and ecological impacts of invasive alien species are critical for risk assessment, but presently we lack universal and standardized metrics that reliably predict the likelihood and degree of impact of such invaders (i.e. measurable changes in populations of affected species). This need is especially pressing for emerging and potential future invaders that have no invasion history. Such a metric would also ideally apply across diverse taxonomic and trophic groups. We derive a new metric of invader ecological impact that blends: (i) the classic Functional Response ( FR ; consumer per capita effect) and Numerical Response ( NR ; consumer population response) approaches to determining consumer impact, that is, the Total Response ( TR = FR × NR ), with; (ii) the ‘Parker–Lonsdale equation’ for invader impact, where Impact = Range × Abundance × Effect ( per capita effect), into; (iii) a new metric, Relative Impact Potential ( RIP ), where RIP = FR × Abundance. The RIP metric is an invader/native ratio, where values >1 predict that invader ecological impact will occur, and increasing values above 1 indicate increasing impact. In addition, the invader/invader RIP ratio allows comparisons of the ecological impacts of different invaders. Across a diverse range of trophic and taxonomic groups, including predators, herbivores, animals and plants (22 invader/native systems with 47 individual comparisons), high‐impact invaders were significantly associated with higher FR s compared to native trophic analogues. However, the RIP metric substantially improves this association, with 100% predictive power of high‐impact invaders. Further, RIP scores were significantly and positively correlated with two independent ecological impact scores for invaders, allowing prediction of the degree of impact of invasive alien species with the RIP metric. Finally, invader/invader RIP scores were also successful in identifying and associating with higher impacting invasive alien species. Synthesis and applications . The Relative Impact Potential metric combines the per capita effects of invaders with their abundances, relative to trophically analogous natives, and is successful in predicting the likelihood and degree of ecological impact caused by invasive alien species. As the metric constitutes readily measurable features of individuals, populations and species across abiotic and biotic context‐dependencies, even emerging and potential future invasive alien species can be assessed. The Relative Impact Potential metric can be rapidly utilized by scientists and practitioners and could inform policy and management of invasive alien species across diverse taxonomic and trophic groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations220
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207