Cited by 332Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesSpecies Distribution and Climate Change

Biological invasions: a field synopsis, systematic review, and database of the literature

Open access
Lowry, Edward, Rollinson, Emily J., Laybourn, Adam J., Scott, Tracy E., Aiello‐Lammens, Matthew E., Gray, Sarah M., Mickley, James, Gurevitch, Jessica·2013·Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Species introductions of anthropogenic origins are a major aspect of rapid ecological change globally. Research on biological invasions has generated a large literature on many different aspects of this phenomenon. Here, we describe and categorize some aspects of this literature, to better understand what has been studied and what we know, mapping well‐studied areas and important gaps. To do so, we employ the techniques of systematic reviewing widely adopted in other scientific disciplines, to further the use of approaches in reviewing the literature that are as scientific, repeatable, and transparent as those employed in a primary study. We identified 2398 relevant studies in a field synopsis of the biological invasions literature. A majority of these studies (58%) were concerned with hypotheses for causes of biological invasions, while studies on impacts of invasions were the next most common (32% of the publications). We examined 1537 papers in greater detail in a systematic review. Superior competitive abilities of invaders, environmental disturbance, and invaded community species richness were the most common hypotheses examined. Most studies examined only a single hypothesis. Almost half of the papers were field observational studies. Studies of terrestrial invasions dominate the literature, with most of these concerning plant invasions. The focus of the literature overall is uneven, with important gaps in areas of theoretical and practical importance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ece3.431

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the late 1930s, William Cochran and Frank Yates described approaches that were essentially the same as modern fixed-effect and random-effects models, which were formalized and generalized by Cochran.

    “In the late 1930s, William Cochran and his colleague, Frank Yates described approaches that were essentially the same as modern fixed-effect and random-effects models 32 (see Box 1), which were formalized and generalized by Cochran 33 .”

    From Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins JPT Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2009 West Sussex, U.K John Wiley & Sons Ltd Online version 5.1.0 Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 20, 2012

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lowry, E., Rollinson, E. J., Laybourn, A. J., Scott, T. E., Aiello‐Lammens, M. E., Gray, S. M., Mickley, J., & Gurevitch, J.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of Fribourg (CH)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
Corresponding author
Gurevitch, Jessica
Venue
Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
182-196
ISSN
2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2106255106
Cited by
332
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
Funders
Stony Brook University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
Keywords
biological invasions, species introduction, anthropogenic introduction, invasive species impacts, environmental disturbance, species richness, plant invasion, research gaps, literature synthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review