The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant
Abstract
One explanation for successful plant invaders is that they evolved to be more competitive. An intuitive prediction of this Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) hypothesis never previously tested is that invasive populations should outcompete their native ‘ancestors’ in a common environment. We tested this idea in a diallel competition experiment with Alliaria petiolata where offspring from native and invasive populations were grown alone or in all pairwise combinations. While without competition, there were no differences between native and invasive populations, native populations outperformed invasive ones when competing against each other. Our results contradict the EICA hypothesis and we conclude that it does not not hold for Alliaria petiolata. Instead, we formulate a new ERCA (Evolutionary Reduced Competitive Ability) hypothesis: if there is less competition in the invasive range and competitive ability involves traits that have a fitness cost, then selection might act against it, thereby reducing intraspecific interactions too.
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
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
The population biology of invasive species
Sakai, A. K., Allendorf, F. W., Holt, J. S., Lodge, D. M., Molofsky, J., With, K. A., Baughman, S., Cabin, R. J., Cohen, J. E., Ellstrand, N. C., et al. (2001) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114037 · Cited by 3,912
Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies
Moran, M. D. (2003) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12010.x · Cited by 1,484 · cited 4×
“To account for multiple statistical tests of the same hypothesis, we calculated the expected probabilities of finding significant results and compared these with observed frequencies instead of using overly conservative Bonferroni procedures ( Moran 2003 ).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMather, K., & Jinks, J. L. (1982) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3406-2 · Cited by 963
Cited by
Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability
Callaway, R. M., & Ridenour, W. M. (2004) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0436:nwisat]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,632
Jack of all trades, master of some? On the role of phenotypic plasticity in plant invasions
Richards, C. L., Bossdorf, O., Muth, N. Z., Gurevitch, J., & Pigliucci, M. (2006) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00950.x · Cited by 1,456
Self-citationNOVEL WEAPONS: INVASIVE PLANT SUPPRESSES FUNGAL MUTUALISTS IN AMERICA BUT NOT IN ITS NATIVE EUROPE
Callaway, R. M., Cipollini, D., Barto, K., Thelen, G. C., Hallett, S. G., Prati, D., Stinson, K., & Klironomos, J. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0370.1 · Cited by 577
Self-citationJoshi, J., & Vrieling, K. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00769.x · Cited by 473
Resource competition in plant invasions: emerging patterns and research needs
Gioria, M., & Osborne, B. A. (2014) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00501 · Cited by 437
Metadata
- Authors
- Bossdorf, O., Prati, D., Auge, H., & Schmid, B.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-03-11
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 346-353
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2130668419
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.36
- 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: Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00583.x
- The paper
- Bossdorf, O., Prati, D., Auge, H., & Schmid, B. (2004). Reduced competitive ability in an invasive plant. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00583.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.