Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of invasive and non‐invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients

Open access
Burns, Jean H.·2004·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Little is known about the traits and mechanisms that determine whether or not a species will be invasive. Invasive species are those that establish and spread after being introduced to a novel habitat. A number of previous studies have attempted to correlate specific plant traits with invasiveness. However, many such studies may be flawed because they fail to account for shared evolutionary history or fail to measure performance directly. It is also clear that performance is context dependent. Thus, an approach that corrects for relatedness and incorporates multiple experimental conditions will provide additional information on performance traits of invasive species. I use this approach with two or three pairs of invasive and closely related non‐invasive species of Commelinaceae grown over experimental gradients of nutrient and water availability. Invasive species have been introduced, established, and spread outside their native range; non‐invasive species have been introduced, possibly (but not necessarily) established, but are not known to have spread outside their native range. The invasive species had higher relative growth rates (RGR) than non‐invasive congeners at high nutrient availabilities, but did not differ from non‐invasive species at low nutrient availabilities. This is consistent with a strategy where these particular invasive species are able to rapidly use available resources. Relative growth rates were also higher for two out of three invasive species across a water availability gradient, but RGR did not differ in plasticity between the invasive and non‐invasive species. This suggests that nutrient addition, but not changes in water availability, might favour invasion of dayflowers. This approach is novel in comparing multiple pairs of invasive and non‐invasive congeners across multiple experimental conditions and allows evaluation of the robustness of performance differences. It also controls for some of the effects of relatedness that might confound multispecies comparisons.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00105.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 3 references

Metadata

Authors
Burns, J. H.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09
Volume
10
Issue
5-6
Pages
387-397
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
OpenAlex
W2125032119
Cited by
195
References
3
FWCI
7.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: A comparison of invasive and non‐invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00105.x
The paper
Burns, J. H. (2004). A comparison of invasive and non‐invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00105.x

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.