MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410529590 · doi:10.15407/agrisp12.01.046

The invasive effect of Solidago canadensis L. on the structural characteristics of soil nematode communities in the ecosystems of the eu-mesophytic meadows

2025· article· en· W4410529590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Тетяна Жиліна, Олександр Лукаш, Oleksandr Yakovenko, В. Л. Шевченко

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural science and practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNematode management and characterization studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidago canadensisMesophyteEcosystemNematodeEcologyInvasive speciesGeographyBotanyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim. To compare the eco-trophic structure of soil nematode communities in the ecosystems of the eu-mesophytic meadows in plots non-invaded and invaded by Solidago canadensis L. Methods. Soil samples from the rhizosphere of native meadow plants and those with S. canadensis were collected in September 2021 in two meadow ecosystems located on the outskirts of the villages Shostovytsia and Ladinka of the Chernihiv region. The nematodes were extracted by a modified Baermann's method from the 20 g samples. The exposure time was 48 h. The extracted nematodes were fixed in the triethanolamine–formalin (TAF, 2 % triethanolamine, 7 % formaldehyde solution, 91 % water), and mounted on the temporary hydroglyceric slides. The nematode abundance was expressed as specimens per 100 g of dry soil. The following parameters were analysed: abundance, taxonomic composition, dominance, trophic structure of soil nematode communities. The taxonomic wealth index, Menhinick's, Berger–Parker indexes, Jaccarda's index of similarity, and the maturity index were also calculated. Results. The average abundance of nematodes in the soil nematode communities was 1,075 individuals/100 g in the rhizosphere of native meadow plants and 636 individuals/100 g in the rhizosphere of S. canadensis. A total of 52 species were identified in the soil of meadow ecosystems: 44 — in the non-invaded plots and 29 — in the invaded plots; Menhinick's diversity index was 1.34 and 1.15, respectively. The taxonomic wealth index of nematode communities in the rhizosphere of native plants was also higher — ST = 116; in the rhizosphere of Canadian goldenrod — ST=84. Such families as Tylenchidae, Cephalobidae, Tylencholaimidae and Panagrolaimidae were more numerous in the soil samples of the native meadow plants (25 %, 18.4 %, 12.9 %, 10.3 % of the total number, respectively). Paratylenchidae, Tylenchidae, Cephalobidae and Aphelenchidae were more numerous in the plots with S. canadensis (37.1 %, 15.1 %, 14.3 %, 10.1 %, respectively). The taxonomic wealth index was higher in non-invaded plots (2.98) than those, invaded by Canadian goldenrod (2.75). The bacterivores and fungivores predominated quantitatively in nematode communities in the rhizosphere of native meadow plants. The proportion in the community amounted to 76.4 %. The plant parasites and fungivores were the most numerous in the plots with S. canadensis. The abundance of nematodes in other tropic groups were limited or not affected. Conclusions. It was determined that the species wealth and abundance, the taxonomic and trophic diversity of soil nematode communities were lower in the plots with the invasion by Canadian goldenrod. The abundance of plant parasites was higher (2.3 times); the ratio of fungivores to bacterivores was also higher in the invaded plots (1.2 times). The maturity index was lower in the invaded plots compared to the non-invaded ones (2.1 and 2.4) which demonstrates a more disturbed environmental conditions in the plots of the meadow with the invasion of the S. canadensis. The studies emphasize the need to monitor invasive species and develop strategies for their control in order to preserve soil biodiversity and support sustainable grassland management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural science and practiceSame topicNematode management and characterization studiesFrench-language works237,207