MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209315515 · doi:10.1111/ele.13908

Host phylogenetic diversity predicts the global extent and composition of tree pests

2021· letter· en· W3209315515 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew V. Gougherty, T. Jonathan Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcologyBiologyHost (biology)Range (aeronautics)Phylogenetic treePEST analysisDistribution (mathematics)LimitingPhylogenetic diversityEntomologyTree (set theory)Botany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree pests cause billions of dollars of damage annually; yet, we know little about what limits their regional composition and distribution. Here, we model the co-occurrence of 4510 pests and 981 tree host genera spread across 233 countries. We show the composition of tree pests is primarily driven by the phylogenetic composition of host trees, whereas effects of climate and geography tend to be more minor. Pests that utilise many hosts tend to be more widespread; however, most pests do not fill the geographic range of their hosts-indicating that many pests could expand their extents if able to overcome barriers limiting their current distribution. Our results suggest that the establishment of pests in new regions may be largely dictated by the presence of suitable host trees, but more work is needed to fully understand the influences climate has on the distributions of individual pest species.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207