MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922381439 · doi:10.1002/9781119312994.apr0643

Trait Evolution in Invasive Species

2018· other· en· W2922381439 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn A. Hodgins, Dan G. Bock, Loren H. Rieseberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Plant Reviews online · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInvasive speciesAbiotic componentTraitPhenotypic plasticityAdaptation (eye)EcologyAdaptive evolutionEvolutionary biologyDivergence (linguistics)Adaptive valueRealisation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the most exciting recent developments in the field of invasion biology has been the growing realisation that evolution can determine invasive species' success. Here, we review research on contemporary evolution in invasive populations, with a focus on traits that have the potential to contribute to invasive spread. Evidence available so far indicates adaptive divergence in quantitative traits predominates, although the contribution of non‐adaptive processes should not be easily discounted. Further, contemporary evolution of invasive populations appears to be more frequently spurred by abiotic factors, rather than escape from natural enemies. Important progress remains to be made on the role of hybridisation in invasion success, or the conditions under which rapid evolution of phenotypic plasticity at key traits leads to invasions. Also, we do not yet have a firm grasp on how often expansion load limits invasive spread. While convincing examples of adaptation along geographic or climatic gradients are available, we highlight conditions under which such clines would arise irrespective of biotic or abiotic conditions. We propose potentially important future lines of investigation that can illuminate the mechanistic basis of invasion success while maximising the value of invasive species for understanding evolutionary processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations88
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Plant Reviews onlineSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207