Invasive plant removal strategies and native plant community recovery in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction and spread of invasive species are of major conservation concern. Invasive plant species are hypothesized to impact the population dynamics of native flora, including species at risk (SAR), and may disrupt the functioning of the plant communities which they invade. Some native plant populations may be more vulnerable due to pre-existing factors such as fragmented habitat, poor competitive nature, and/or limited geographical ranges. Because of this, the presence of one or more invasive species is frequently cited as a leading cause of at-risk species decline. However, the actual evidence for this link is weak and the mechanisms are unclear. In this study, I aimed to (1) determine the effect of invasive management schemes on the recovery of native plant communities and to (2) examine the role of factors such as method of removal and duration of invasive removal at two conservation areas in southern Ontario. After 12 candidate study areas were surveyed, two were chosen for the study (for logistical reasons). Specifically, pairs of ‘control’ and ‘invasive’ removal sites were established at St. Williams Conservation Reserve, near Turkey Point Provincial Park, ON (N = 10) and Bruce Peninsula National Park, ON (N = 8) through May - August 2018. Plots were surveyed for native and invasive plant species richness and abundance using transect methods. I found a significant difference in the abundance of native and invasive plants between control and treatment plots at St. Williams Conservation Reserve and Bruce Peninsula National Park, although the trends were in the opposite direction. Neither site had a significant difference in plant diversity between treatment types. I discuss my findings in light of the differences in land use history and management at the two areas and their implications for invasive removal schemes to manage for native plant conservation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".