No evidence that rapid adaptation impedes biological control of an invasive plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biological control is a popular tool for invasive species management, but its success in nature is difficult to predict. One risk is that invasive plants, which may have adapted to lower herbivore pressure in the introduced range, could rapidly evolve defences upon re‐association with their biocontrol agent(s). Previous studies have demonstrated that populations of the invasive plant purple loosestrife ( Lythrum salicaria ) exposed to biocontrol exhibit traits consistent with the rapid evolution of defence. However, to date, no one has tested this hypothesis under field‐natural levels of herbivory. Using seed from 17 populations of purple loosestrife growing in eastern Canada, that varied in their history of exposure to their biocontrol agent, the leaf beetle Neogalerucella spp., we transplanted 1,088 seedlings from 136 maternal families into a common garden under ambient herbivory. Over the following three and half years, we assessed plant performance in the face of biocontrol by measuring early‐season plant size, defoliation, flowering, and season‐end biomass. We discovered that a population history with biocontrol explained little variation in herbivory or plant performance, suggesting that adaptation is not hindering biocontrol effectiveness. Instead, plant size, subsequent defoliation, and spatio‐temporal variables were the main predictors of plant growth and flowering during the study. The high individual variability we observed in plant performance underscores that flexible strategies of allocation and phenology are important contributors to the persistence of invasive plants. Our findings suggest that plant adaptation to biocontrol is unlikely to be a strong impediment to biological control in this species, however, the high survival and variable defoliation of plants in our study also indicate that biocontrol alone is unlikely to result in significant population decline. We recommend that the application of multiple forms of control simultaneously (e.g. thinning plus biocontrol) could help to prevent the existence of refuges of large, reproductive individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".