Can trophic rewilding reduce the impact of fire in a more flammable world?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological invasions are on the rise globally. To reduce future invasions, it is imperative to determine the naturalization potential of species. Until now, screening approaches have relied largely on species-specific functional feature data. Such information is, however, time-consuming and expensive to collect, thwarting the screening of large numbers of potential invaders. We propose to resolve such data limitations by developing indicators of establishment success of alien species that can be readily derived from open-access databases. These indicators describe key features of successfully established aliens, including estimates of potential range size, niche overlap with human-disturbed environments, and proxies of species traits related to their palaeoinvasions and local dominance capacities. We demonstrate the utility of this new approach by applying it to two large and highly invasive plant groups: Australian acacias and eucalypts. Our results show that these indicators robustly predict establishment successes and failures in each clade independently, and that they can cross-predict establishment in these two clades. Interestingly, the indicator identified as most important was species potential range size on Earth, a variable too rarely considered as a predictor. By successfully identifying key features that predispose Australian plants to naturalize, we provide an objective and cost-effective protocol for flagging high-risk introductions.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".