MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410859465 · doi:10.3897/neobiota.99.151227

Insect invasion success depends on taxon and trophic group

2025· article· en· W4410859465 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Mally, Rebecca M. Turner, Helen F. Nahrung, Takehiko Yamanaka, Gyda Fenn‐Moltu, Cléo Bertelsmeier, Alain Roques, Eckehard G. Brockerhoff, Deepa S. Pureswaran, Andrew M. Liebhold

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoBiota · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
FundersResearch Executive AgencyU.S. Forest ServiceEuropean CommissionNational Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterU.S. Department of AgricultureUniversitetet i BergenNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTrophic levelTaxonGroup (periodic table)EcologyBiologyInsectEvolutionary biologyZoologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of non-native animal species globally are insects, though some insect species are more successful invaders than others. These differences can be attributed, in part, to differences among dominant trophic groups. Previous analyses indicate that insect herbivores are generally over-represented among non-native species while other groups, such as predators, are under-represented. Here we explore how invasion success varies among insect taxa and trophic groups. We quantify over-representation in species grouped by taxon (order or family) and larval trophic group (herbivore, detritivore, predator, parasite, brood carer); over- and under-representation is computed by comparing proportional representation of groups among non-native species in 12 world regions with total numbers in these same groups globally. Although herbivores are generally the most successful group among non-natives, we found their invasion success to vary among their taxonomic groups: herbivores are over-represented among Hemiptera, Diptera, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera, but under-represented among Lepidoptera and Orthoptera; similar patterns are seen at the family-level within orders. Even after accounting for trophic group, some orders were still over-represented. Within trophic groups, this pattern appeared strongest for herbivores, where predominantly parthenogenetic families belonging to the Hemiptera and Thysanoptera were over-represented in non-native assemblages, while families in the Lepidoptera and Polyneoptera were under-represented. Over time (1850s to 2000s), fractions of non-native species numbers in certain orders and trophic groups have varied, such as among parasites, where a considerable turnover took place from mostly bird-lice (Psocodea) in the 19th century to parasitic wasps (Hymenoptera) in the 20th century. It is thus likely that factors other than trophic group, such as associations with invasion pathways (e.g., plants, wood packaging), cause the observed differences in the over-representation of families belonging to different orders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeoBiotaSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207