The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are Invaders Moving Targets? The Generality and Persistence of Advantages in Size, Reproduction, and Enemy Release in Invasive Plant Species with Time since Introduction
Abstract
Successful plant invasions are often attributed to increased plant size, reproduction, or release from natural enemies, but the generality and persistence of these patterns remains widely debated. Meta-analysis was used to quantitatively assess invasive plant performance and release from enemy damage and how these change with residence time and geographic distribution. Invasive plants were compared either in their introduced and home ranges or with native congeners in the introduced range. Invasive plants in the introduced range were generally larger, allocated more to reproduction, and had lower levels of herbivore damage compared with conspecifics in the home range; pathogen attack, however, varied widely. In congener comparisons, invasive and native plants did not differ in size or herbivory, but invaders did allocate less to reproduction and had lower levels of pathogen damage. Time since introduction was a significant nonlinear predictor of enemy release for both herbivores and pathogens, with initial release in recently arrived species and little to no release after 50 to 200 years. Geographic distribution was also a significant nonlinear predictor of enemy release. The observed nonlinear relationships are consistent with dynamic invasions and may define targets for eradication efforts if these patterns hold up for individual species.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704 · cited 2×
“All calculations follow Hedges et al. (1999).”
Method
Cited by
Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species
Ricciardi, A., Hoopes, M. F., Marchetti, M. P., & Lockwood, J. L. (2013) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/13-0183.1 · Cited by 760
Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges?
Parker, J. D., Torchin, M. E., Hufbauer, R. A., Lemoine, N. P., Alba, C., Blumenthal, D. M., Bossdorf, O., Byers, J. E., Dunn, A. M., Heckman, R. W., et al. (2013) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/12-1810.1 · Cited by 275
The ecology and evolution of constructed ecosystems as green infrastructure
Lundholm, J. T. (2015) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2015.00106 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Hawkes, C. V.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 170
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 832-843
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2084362845
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are Invaders Moving Targets? The Generality and Persistence of Advantages in Size, Reproduction, and Enemy Release in Invasive Plant Species with Time since Introduction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/522842
- The paper
- Hawkes, C. V. (2007). Are Invaders Moving Targets? The Generality and Persistence of Advantages in Size, Reproduction, and Enemy Release in Invasive Plant Species with Time since Introduction. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/522842
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.