The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Greater Focus Needed on Alien Plant Impacts in Protected Areas
Open accessAbstract
Alien plants pose significant threats to protected areas worldwide yet many studies only describe the degree to which these areas have become invaded. Research must move toward a better understanding of alien plant impacts since managers urgently require an appropriate evidence base to prioritize control/eradication targets. We analyze a global database of quantitative studies of alien plant impacts to evaluate existing knowledge of alien plant impacts within and outside protected areas. Although protected areas are a significant focus for quantitative impact studies, the biogeographic emphasis of most research effort does not coincide with the global distribution of protected areas nor the plant species or life‐forms recognized to have greatest impacts on ecosystems. While impacts were often as significant within protected areas as outside, only a minority of studies provide any subsequent management recommendations. There is therefore considerable scope to improve the evidence base on alien plant management in protected areas.
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.
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?
Protected areas suffer from impacts at the species and community levels, through the alteration of habitats, regime shifts, and diverse undesired effects on native species abundance, diversity, and richness.
“However, protected areas remain vulnerable to invasions: they suffer from impacts at the species and community levels, through the alteration of habitats, regime shifts, and through diverse undesired effects on native species abundance, diversity, and richness (Foxcroft et al., 2013; Hulme et al., 2014).”
From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Hulme et al., 2014
The Methods (page not available) include native species abundance, diversity and richness among the impacts assessed, and the Results and Discussion report significant impacts on plant and animal populations, species and communities in protected areas. The paper also examines fire regimes, but the cited passages do not establish habitat alteration or regime shifts; its significance measure includes both increases and decreases, so it does not establish that all these effects were undesirable. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFew assessments or studies on the impacts of invasions in protected areas provide management recommendations.
“few assessments or studies on the impacts of invasions in protected areas provide management recommendations (Genovesi & Monaco, 2013; Hulme et al., 2014).”
From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Hulme et al., 2014
The Discussion reports that only one-third of studies of alien plant impacts in protected areas interpret their findings in terms of management implications. This supports the claim that few such studies offer management guidance, but the paper examines alien plants, not invasions across all taxa. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredResearch on impacts of invasive alien species in protected areas is geographically biased, with much more research conducted in the Americas and on Pacific Islands than in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
“However, geographical biases are evident – much more research has been conducted in the Americas and on Pacific Islands than in Africa, Asia, and Europe (Hulme et al., 2014).”
From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Hulme et al., 2014
The Results report a geographic bias: studies of alien-plant impacts were disproportionately conducted in protected areas in the Americas and Pacific islands, while the opposite pattern held in Europe, Asia, and Africa. The claim extends this finding to invasive alien species generally and describes it as a difference in the amount of research, whereas the reported comparison concerns the proportion of alien-plant impact studies conducted inside versus outside protected areas. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredProtected areas remain vulnerable to invasions.
“However, protected areas remain vulnerable to invasions: they suffer from impacts at the species and community levels, through the alteration of habitats, regime shifts, and through diverse undesired effects on native species abundance, diversity, and richness (Foxcroft et al., 2013; Hulme et al., 2014).”
From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Hulme et al., 2014
For plants, 37% of 282 quantitative studies on impacts of invasive alien species in the peer-reviewed literature originated from research in protected areas.
“For plants, a global assessment showed that 37% of 282 quantitative studies on impacts of IAS in the peer‐reviewed literature originated from research in protected areas.”
From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Hulme et al., 2014
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- 10.1007/s10530-008-9376-1 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0800437105 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00267-009-9280-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90003-1 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.291.5501.125 · DOI
- 10.1890/090020 · DOI
- 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en · DOI
- 10.5721/EuJRS20134616 · DOI
- GISP, 2007, Invasive alien species and protected areas: a scoping report part I. Scoping the scale and nature of invasive alien species threats to protected areas, impediments to management and means to address those impediments
- 10.1201/9781420041668.ch2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02069.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.010 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.336.6085.1102-b · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.016 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rspb.2010.1713 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00243.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ppees.2009.06.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.017 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01953.x · DOI
- 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1522:GPOPIA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90006-7 · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90005-5 · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90004-3 · DOI
- 10.1890/110154 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00300.x · DOI
- 10.1080/09669580903406613 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00150-1 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02248.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.0911131107 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00442-004-1527-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.029 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.022 · DOI
- Timmins S.M., 1991, Weed numbers in New Zealand forest and scrub reserves, New Zealand J. Ecol., 15, 153
- 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90007-9 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01628.x · DOI · Paper page
- Weber E., 2003, Invasive plant species of the world: a reference guide to environmental weeds
- 10.1201/9781420041668.ch10 · DOI
- Wu S.H., 2009, Patterns of plant invasions in the preserves and recreation areas of Shei‐Pa National Park in Taiwan, Bot. Stud., 50, 217
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scientists' warning on invasive alien species
Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Simberloff, D., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Carlton, J. T., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Foxcroft, L. C., Genovesi, P., et al. (2020) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12627 · Cited by 2,234
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hulme, P. E., Pyšek, P., Pergl, J., Jarošík, V., Schaffner, U., & Vilà, M.
- Affiliations
- Lincoln University (NZ)
- Charles University (CZ)
- Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany (CZ)
- Institute of Botany, Department of Invasion Ecology Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Průhonice Czech Republic
- CABI Switzerland (CH)
- Estación Biológica de Doñana (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Hulme, Philip E.
- Venue
- Conservation Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-09-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 459-466
- ISSN
- 1755-263X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1551038279
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 6.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Conservation Letters (publishedVersion)
- SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
- ASEP (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Lincoln University Research Archive (Lincoln University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Grantová Agentura České Republiky (RVO 67,985,939, GAP504/11/1028, 67985939)
- Akademie Věd České Republiky (RVO [67985939], 67985939, P504/11/1028)
- Junta de Andalucía (RNM-4031)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Botany and Plant Ecology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Biological Control of Invasive Species
- Keywords
- non-native plants, invasive plants, protected areas, biological invasions, ecological impacts, invasive species management, research priorities, evidence base
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
