MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413040893 · doi:10.1111/ele.70154

Plant Invasion Decreases the Likelihood of Community Persistence Through Asymmetric Competition

2025· letter· en· W4413040893 on OpenAlexaff
Tingting Wu, Yuanzhi Li, Marc W. Cadotte, Toby P. N. Tsang, Zi Wang, Chengjin Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPersistence (discontinuity)EcologyCompetition (biology)BiologyCommunityInterspecific competitionPlant communityEcological successionHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant invasion is a significant driver of species loss in ecological communities. However, projecting its impact on multispecies coexistence remains a challenge. Here, we conducted pairwise experiments with five native and five non-native species, using the Ricker model to estimate interaction coefficients and population growth rates. We assessed the impact of non-native species on community persistence potential through a structural approach that integrates multispecies interactions and estimates coexistence probabilities. We found that community persistence potential generally declined after invasion, with the feasibility domain (i.e., the probability that all species co-occur simultaneously) becoming more asymmetric as more native species were replaced by non-native ones. Interestingly, non-native species were more likely to be excluded first under random environmental perturbations in communities where they were dominant. Our findings highlight the importance of clarifying species interaction structure under random disturbances in shaping community persistence and suggest tailored invasion management strategies to optimise resource allocation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207