Effects of the invasive leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) on plant community structure are altered by management history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive species threaten biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, often causing changes in plant community composition and, thus, the functional traits of that community. Quantifying changes in traits can help us understand invasive species impacts on communities; however, both the invader and the plant community may be responding to the same environmental drivers. In North America, leafy spurge ( Euphorbia esula L.) is a problematic invader that reduces plant diversity and forage production for livestock. Its documented effects on plant communities differ amongst studies, however, potentially due to differences in productivity or land management. To identify the potential effects of leafy spurge on plant communities, we quantified leafy spurge abundance, plant species richness, forage production, functional group composition and community weighted mean traits, intensively at a single site and extensively across ten sites differing in management. We then tested how leafy spurge abundance related to these variables as a function of site management activities. Leafy spurge abundance was consistently associated with fewer plant species, reduced forage production and more invasive grass. Community-weighted specific root length also consistently increased with leafy spurge abundance, suggesting that belowground competition may be important in determining co-existence with leafy spurge. Other changes were dependent on management. Native forbs were excluded as leafy spurge became more abundant, but only in grazed sites as these species were already absent from ungrazed sites. Taller plants better persisted in dense leafy spurge patches, but only in grazed sites, consistent with either facilitation of taller species via associational defences or competitive exclusion of shorter species in ungrazed sites and dense leafy spurge patches. These results show that, despite some emergent properties of invasion, management context can alter invasion impacts by causing changes in the plant community and its interactions with the invader.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".