Arthropods and plant invasions: a systematic review, case study, and methods contrast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this program of study is to explore the relationship between invasive plants and arthropods and the importance of arthropods as bioindicators of environmental change. This thesis provides a systematic review of the literature on arthropod communities in association with invasive plants, then quantifies these effects with a case-study involving the plant invader Centaurea stoebe, and finally contrasts two arthropod sampling methods, sweep netting and pan trapping in a grassland system. The majority of arthropod-invasive plant literature is relatively simple, documenting the herbivore feeding guild in only the invaded region, as opposed to 2 or more trophic levels in both the invaded and native region. In grassland systems invaded by C. stoebe, overall arthropod abundance was reduced compared to uninvaded areas, though different trophic groups responded differently to invasion: native herbivores and omnivores negatively, and predators, detritivores, and biological control herbivores positively, likely through both direct and indirect mechanisms. For community-scale arthropod surveys in impacted grassland systems, a combination of sweep netting and pan trapping is recommended to adequately capture most arthropod groups, however, bees, which are important bioindicator organisms, are well represented in pan trap captures alone. Future studies of invasive plants would benefit from multi-trophic arthropod surveys to elucidate broad-scale patterns before finer resolution, taxon specific studies occur. Arthropods are key ecosystem components and quickly mirror the effects of environmental disturbance, making them valuable bioindicators.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".