Be it Horseweed or Common Reed: Invasion Sucks Indeed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive alien species (IAS), which often differ in abundance and impacts in native and non-native ranges, need to be studied biogeographically for understanding such impacts. Here we demonstrate how common reed, Phragmites australis, and Canadian horseweed, Conyza canadensis, vary in abundance, impacts and genetic diversity within and across ranges. Our global scale field studies and controlled experiments revealed that both these species tend to drive out natives in the introduced ranges, but not at home. These species are biased in their competitive effects on species that co-occur with them in native and non-native ranges, suppressing the latter more than former. For instance, P. australis significantly reduces biomass, plant height and number of leaves of co-occurring species in non-native ranges than the native ranges. Invasive populations of P. australis showed highest levels of genetic diversity while the native populations showed the lowest. For C. canadensis, genetic diversity was relatively low and comparable between native and non-native ranges. Eco-physiological basis of variations in the behavior of invasive species and their impacts on key ecosystem functions are discussed. Insights from genetic variations and ecological impacts of two flagship global invaders at a transcontinental scale reiterate the need for integrated efforts worldwide to understand and manage the spread of IAS.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".