MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243531586 · doi:10.1079/9781789242171.0010

EICA 2.0: a general model of enemy release and defence in plant and animal invasions.

2020· book-chapter· en· W4243531586 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Honor, Robert L. Colautti

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerbivoreBiologyAdversaryEcologyPredationNatural enemiesNatural (archaeology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plants and animals have evolved a variety of strategies to limit the negative fitness consequences of natural enemies (i.e. herbivores, predators, parasites and pathogens). Demographic bottlenecks occurring during the invasion process reduce the number of co-introduced natural enemies, providing opportunities to study rapid evolution in environments with different or reduced enemy loads. Enemy release theory provides a set of hypotheses and predictions about the role of natural enemies in the proliferation of invasive species. This body of theory includes the Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) and the related Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability Hypothesis (EICA), but there is often confusion about these hypotheses and the data needed to test them. We introduce a simple, general model of enemy release to identify and clarify some of the key assumptions and predictions implicit in enemy release theory and its impacts on invasion. Although introduced populations likely benefit from a reduction in the direct fitness impacts of natural enemies in the early stages of invasion, an evolutionary shift in resource allocation from defence to growth and reproduction is much less likely and depends on a delicate balance between the fitness costs and benefits of defence and the fitness impacts of natural enemies in both the native and introduced ranges. Even when the abundance of natural enemies is lower in the introduced range, the majority of scenarios do not favour evolution of less defended genotypes that are more competitive or more fecund, contrary to predictions of EICA. Perhaps surprisingly, we find that the level of damage by natural enemies in field surveys is not generally a good parameter for testing enemy release theory. Instead, common garden experiments characterizing fitness reaction norms of multiple genotypes from the native and introduced range are crucial to estimate the historic rate of adaptive evolution or predict it into the future. Incorporating spatial autocorrelation and methods from population genetics can further improve our understanding of the role of enemy release and evolution in the proliferation of invasive 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI eBooksSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207