Data from: Comparative impacts of aboveground and belowground enemies on an invasive thistle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Most research examining how herbivores and pathogens affect performance of invasive plants focuses on aboveground interactions. Although important, the role of belowground communities remains poorly understood, and the relative impact of aboveground and belowground interactions is still debated. As well, most studies of belowground interactions have been carried out in controlled environments, so little is known about the role of these interactions under natural conditions or how these relationships may change across a plant’s range. 2. Using the invasive plant Cirsium arvense, we performed a reciprocal transplant experiment to test the relative impacts of above- and belowground interactions at three sites across a 509 km latitudinal gradient in its invaded range in Ontario, Canada. At each site, C. arvense seedlings were protected with above- and/or belowground exclosures in a factorial design. 3. Plant performance (biomass, height, stem thickness, number of leaves, length of longest leaf, maximum rhizome length) was greatest when both above- and belowground exclosures were applied and lowest when no exclosures were applied. When only one type of exclosure was applied, biomass generally improved more with belowground exclosures than with aboveground exclosures. 4. Synthesis: Despite site-to-site differences in foliar damage, root damage, and mesofaunal populations, belowground interactions generally had a greater negative impact on performance than aboveground herbivory alone. These results stress the importance of including both aboveground enemy interactions and plant-soil interactions in studies of plant community dynamics and invader performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".