MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293067916 · doi:10.1111/jbi.14393

Moths and butterflies on alien shores: Global biogeography of non‐native Lepidoptera

2022· article· en· W4293067916 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Mally, Rebecca M. Turner, Rachael E. Blake, Gyda Fenn‐Moltu, Cléo Bertelsmeier, Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Robert J. B. Hoare, Helen F. Nahrung, Alain Roques, Deepa S. Pureswaran, Takehiko Yamanaka, Andrew M. Liebhold

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaTe Pūnaha MatatiniMinistry of Business, Innovation and EmploymentEuropean CommissionHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNew Zealand’s Biological HeritageNational Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterAnimal and Plant Quarantine AgencySchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungUniversity of Hawai'iInternational Programs, US Forest ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLepidoptera genitaliaIntroduced speciesSpecies richnessPropagule pressureEcologyBiologyErebidaeBiogeographyInvasive speciesCrambidaeBiological dispersalNative plantBiodiversityGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim Lepidoptera is a highly diverse, predominantly herbivorous insect order, with species transported to outside their native range largely facilitated by the global trade of plants and plant‐based goods. Analogous to island disharmony, we examine invasion disharmony, where species filtering during invasions increases systematic compositional differences between native and non‐native species assemblages, and test whether some families are more successful at establishing in non‐native regions than others. Location Hawaii, North America, Galapagos, Europe, South Africa, South Korea, Japan, Nansei Islands, Ogasawara Islands, Australia, New Zealand. Taxon Lepidoptera. Methods We compared numbers of non‐native, unintentionally introduced Lepidoptera species with the land area of 11 regions worldwide. Differences among native and non‐native assemblages in the distribution of species among families were investigated using ordination analysis. We tested whether invasion disharmony is explained by propagule pressure (proxied by species richness in border interceptions) and if families were associated with specific trade commodities. Results In total, 741 non‐native Lepidoptera species, accounting for 0.47% of the global diversity of lepidopterans, are established in at least one of the 11 regions. Crambidae, Pyralidae, Tineidae and Gracillariidae were particularly successful invaders, whereas the two most species‐rich families, Erebidae and Geometridae, were under‐represented among non‐native Lepidoptera. Much of the variation in species numbers in the native, and less so in the non‐native assemblages could be attributed to land area. Although native assemblages were similar among nearby regions, non‐native assemblages were not, suggesting geography had little effect on invasion disharmony. Comparison of established with intercepted species revealed that macromoth families were generally under‐represented in establishments, whereas several micromoth families were under‐represented in interceptions. This discrepancy may relate to greater detectability of larger species or high propagule pressure via associations with specific invasion pathways. Main conclusions Invasion disharmony in Lepidoptera appears to be driven by processes unrelated to the success of native assemblages. While native assemblages developed through long‐term evolutionary radiation, the composition of non‐native assemblages is driven by differential invasion pathways and traits affecting the establishment of founder populations that vary among families.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiogeographySame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207