The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co‐flowering native plants
Abstract
Alien plant species can alter pollinator visitation and, in turn, the sexual reproduction of natives. Using a conventional and a phylogenetically controlled meta‐analytical approach on a data set of 40 studies, we evaluated the effect of alien neighbour plant species (aliens) on visitation to and reproduction of native co‐flowering focal species (focals), and compared such effect to that of native neighbours (natives). An overall significantly negative effect of aliens on visitation to and reproduction of focals was confirmed. Interestingly, aliens differed from natives in their effect on visitation, but not on reproductive success. The negative effect of aliens on visitation and reproductive success increased at high relative alien plant abundance, but this increase was proportionally lower than the increase in relative plant abundance. Likewise, effect of aliens on visitation and reproductive success was most detrimental when alien and focal species had similar flower symmetry or colour. The phylogenetic relatedness between alien neighbours and focals influenced the reproductive success effect size. Results of the phylogenetic meta‐analysis were only partly consistent with those of the conventional meta‐analysis, depending on the response variable and on whether we controlled for the phylogeny of neighbour or focal species, which calls for special attention to control for species relatedness in this type of review. This study demonstrates the predominant detrimental impact of alien plants on pollination and reproduction of natives, and highlights the importance of phenotypic similarity to the outcome of the interaction.
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
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes
BROOKS, M. L., D'ANTONIO, C. M., RICHARDSON, D. M., GRACE, J. B., KEELEY, J. E., DiTOMASO, J. M., HOBBS, R. J., PELLANT, M., & PYKE, D. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0677:eoiapo]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,634
Cited by
Schweiger, O., Biesmeijer, J. C., Bommarco, R., Hickler, T., Hulme, P. E., Klotz, S., Kühn, I., Moora, M., Nielsen, A., Ohlemüller, R., et al. (2010) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00125.x · Cited by 431
Linking plant phenology to conservation biology
Morellato, L. P. C., Alberton, B., Alvarado, S. T., Borges, B., Buisson, E., Camargo, M. G. G., Cancian, L. F., Carstensen, D. W., Escobar, D. F. E., Leite, P. T. P., et al. (2016) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.033 · Cited by 423
Metadata
- Authors
- Morales, C. L., & Traveset, A.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-06-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 716-728
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2105609796
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.47
- 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: A meta‐analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co‐flowering native plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01319.x
- The paper
- Morales, C. L., & Traveset, A. (2009). A meta‐analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co‐flowering native plants. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01319.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.