Tracing the origins and tracking the movements of invasive rubber vines (Cryptostegia spp., Apocynaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptostegia grandiflora and C. madagascariensis (Apocynaceae) are the only two species of this Madagascan plant genus. Both have been transported around the world as ornamentals due to their attractive flowers and based on a perceived potential as sources of rubber – hence, the common name rubber vine – because of their copious latex, which also contains toxic cardiac glycosides. As a result of their vigorous growth and ability to climb over and smother vegetation, both species have become invasive, posing an actual or potential threat to native ecosystems in many tropical and sub-tropical countries, as well as to human and animal health. Classical biological control (CBC), or the introduction of co-evolved natural enemies to control an invasive alien species in its exotic range, has successfully been used to tackle C. grandiflora in northern Queensland, Australia. This strategy is currently being evaluated for its suitability to manage C. madagascariensis in north-eastern Brazil using the same Madagascan rust fungus, Maravalia cryptostegiae , released as a CBC agent in Australia. For CBC to be successful, it is critical to understand the taxonomy of the invader as well as the origin(s) of its weedy biotype(s) in order to select the best-matched co-evolved natural enemies. Based on an exhaustive search in published and unpublished sources, we summarise the taxonomy and uses of these rubber vines, follow their historical movements and track their earliest records and current weed status in more than 80 countries and territories around the world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".