The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis: Invasive species have higher phenotypic plasticity
Abstract
Do invasive plant species have greater phenotypic plasticity than non-invasive species? And, if so, how does this affect their fitness relative to native, non-invasive species? What role might this play in plant invasions? To answer these long-standing questions, we conducted a meta-analysis using data from 75 invasive/non-invasive species pairs. Our analysis shows that invasive species demonstrate significantly higher phenotypic plasticity than non-invasive species. To examine the adaptive benefit of this plasticity, we plotted fitness proxies against measures of plasticity in several growth, morphological and physiological traits to test whether greater plasticity is associated with an improvement in estimated fitness. Invasive species were nearly always more plastic in their response to greater resource availability than non-invasives but this plasticity was only sometimes associated with a fitness benefit. Intriguingly, non-invasive species maintained greater fitness homoeostasis when comparing growth between low and average resource availability. Our finding that invasive species are more plastic in a variety of traits but that non-invasive species respond just as well, if not better, when resources are limiting, has interesting implications for predicting responses to global change.
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Cited by
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses: its magnitude and implications
Senior, A. M., Grueber, C. E., Kamiya, T., Lagisz, M., O'Dwyer, K., Santos, E. S. A., & Nakagawa, S. (2016) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.1591 · Cited by 299
Biological invasions, climate change and genomics
Chown, S. L., Hodgins, K. A., Griffin, P. C., Oakeshott, J. G., Byrne, M., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2015) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/eva.12234 · Cited by 284
Global correlates of range contractions and expansions in terrestrial mammals
Pacifici, M., Rondinini, C., Rhodes, J. R., Burbidge, A. A., Cristiano, A., Watson, J. E. M., Woinarski, J. C. Z., & Di Marco, M. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16684-w · Cited by 197
Barnes, P. W., Robson, T. M., Zepp, R. G., Bornman, J. F., Jansen, M. A. K., Ossola, R., Wang, Q.-W., Robinson, S. A., Foereid, B., Klekociuk, A. R., et al. (2023) · Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43630-023-00376-7 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Davidson, A. M., Jennions, M., & Nicotra, A. B.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-02-14
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 419-431
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2155490215
- Cited by
- 1,289
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.83
- 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: Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis: Invasive species have higher phenotypic plasticity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01596.x
- The paper
- Davidson, A. M., Jennions, M., & Nicotra, A. B. (2011). Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis: Invasive species have higher phenotypic plasticity. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01596.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.