Agronomic non‐native species are overrepresented across habitat types in central Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In response to non‐native plant invasions, many governments have established noxious weed lists to control and eradicate introduced invasive plants. However, invasive agronomic species are often unregulated, and the extent of their invasion across habitat types has never been determined. Using vegetation surveys across 222 plots, we investigated the contribution of agronomic versus noxious non‐native species to the levels of invasion across seven habitat types in central Canada. Although agronomic non‐native species, such as Poa pratensis and Bromus inermis , only made up 21.3% of the non‐native species pool, they accounted for 43.6% of non‐native plant species frequency and 74.4% of relative non‐native plant cover. They were also disproportionately overrepresented compared with noxious non‐native species across all habitat types, except saline marshes. The overabundance of agronomic non‐native plants in central Canada is likely the legacy of cultivar breeding, intentional seeding of introduced forage species and a lack of incentive for the use of native species. Synthesis and applications : Decelerating the invasion by agronomic non‐native plants will require approaches beyond noxious weed lists and initiatives in research, policy and education. These tools can include incentives to use native seed material, for example, in reclamation and forage and turf production, to reduce propagule pressure from invasive agronomic non‐native plants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".