MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110863112 · doi:10.1139/er-2020-0088

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

2020· article· en· W3110863112 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Anthony Ricciardi, Josephine C. Iacarella, David C. Aldridge, Tim M. Blackburn, James T. Carlton, Jane A. Catford, Jaimie T. A. Dick, Philip E. Hulme, Jonathan M. Jeschke, Andrew M. Liebhold, Julie L. Lockwood, Hugh J. MacIsaac, Laura A. Meyerson, Petr Pyšek, David M. Richardson, Gregory M. Ruiz, Daniel Simberloff, Montserrat Vilà, David A. Wardle

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorFisheries and Oceans CanadaMcGill University
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchDST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion BiologyErnest Oppenheimer Memorial TrustBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaGrantová Agentura České RepublikyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Research FoundationBiodiversa+Akademie Věd České RepublikyAgence Nationale de la RechercheNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiosecurityBiological dispersalBiodiversityEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementClimate changeAdaptive managementIntroduced speciesEcologyInvasive speciesPacePsychological resilienceGeographyBiologyBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors— particularly involving climate change—on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.016
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0220.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations200
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207