Invasion disharmony in the global biogeography of native and non‐native beetle species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The concept of “island disharmony” has been widely applied to describe the systematic over‐ and under‐representation of taxa on islands compared to mainland regions. Here, we explore an extension of that concept to biological invasions. We compare biogeographical patterns in native and non‐native beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages from around the world to test whether beetle invasions represent a random sample of species or whether some families are more prone to invade than others. Location Global. Methods Numbers of non‐native beetle species established in ten regions worldwide were compared with the land area of each region. The distribution of species among families was compared with the distribution among families for all species native to the same region and with the distribution among families for the global pool of all known beetle species. Ordination analysis was used to characterize differences among native and non‐native assemblages based upon the distribution of species among families. Results We report a total of 1,967 non‐native beetle species across all ten regions, and a classic log–log relationship between numbers of species per region and land area though relationships are generally stronger for native assemblages. Some families (e.g., Dermestidae and Bostrichidae) are over‐represented and others (e.g., Carabidae, Scarabaeidae and Buprestidae) are under‐represented in non‐native assemblages. The distribution of species among families is generally similar among native assemblages with greatest similarities among nearby regions. In contrast, non‐native species assemblages are more similar to each other than to native species assemblages. Main conclusions Certain families are over‐represented, and others are under‐represented in non‐native beetle assemblages compared to native assemblages, indicating “invasion disharmony” in the global representation of beetle families. Similarities in composition among non‐native assemblages may reflect unobserved associations with invasion pathways and life‐history traits that shape invasion success of different insect groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".