Do longer growing seasons give introduced plants an advantage over native plants in Interior Alaska?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In interior Alaska, increases in growing season length and rapid expansion of introduced species are altering the environment for native plants. We evaluated whether earlier springs, warmer summers, and extended autumns alter the phenology of leaves and flowers in native and introduced forbs and shrubs in the boreal understory and open-canopy habitats, and whether the responses provide an advantage to either group. We tracked the phenology of 29 native and 12 introduced species over three years with very different spring, summer, and autumn conditions. The native species produced flowers (but not leaves) earlier than the introduced species, and both groups advanced leaf-out and flowering in the early-snowmelt year. However, shifts in phenology between early and late years were similar for both groups. There was no increase in fruit development rate for either group in the warm summer. In contrast, in the year with the extended autumn, the introduced plants extended leaf production and time of senescence much more than native species. While growth form and leaf habit could explain the differences in phenology between native and introduced groups in spring and summer, these traits could not account for differences in autumn. We conclude that in boreal Alaska extended autumns may benefit introduced species more than native ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".