Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,154

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework

Open access
Catford, Jane A., Jansson, Roland, Nilsson, Christer·2009·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Aim Invasion ecology includes many hypotheses. Empirical evidence suggests that most of these can explain the success of some invaders to some degree in some circumstances. If they all are correct, what does this tell us about invasion? We illustrate the major themes in invasion ecology, and provide an overarching framework that helps organize research and foster links among subfields of invasion ecology and ecology more generally. Location Global. Methods We review and synthesize 29 leading hypotheses in plant invasion ecology. Structured around propagule pressure (P), abiotic characteristics (A) and biotic characteristics (B), with the additional influence of humans (H) on P, A and B (hereon PAB), we show how these hypotheses fit into one paradigm. P is based on the size and frequency of introductions, A incorporates ecosystem invasibility based on physical conditions, and B includes the characteristics of invading species (invasiveness), the recipient community and their interactions. Having justified the PAB framework, we propose a way in which invasion research could progress. Results By highlighting the common ground among hypotheses, we show that invasion ecology is encumbered by theoretical redundancy that can be removed through integration. Using both holistic and incremental approaches, we show how the PAB framework can guide research and quantify the relative importance of different invasion mechanisms. Main conclusions If the prime aim is to identify the main cause of invasion success, we contend that a top‐down approach that focuses on PAB maximizes research efficiency. This approach identifies the most influential factors first, and subsequently narrows the number of potential causal mechanisms. By viewing invasion as a multifaceted process that can be partitioned into major drivers and broken down into a series of sequential steps, invasion theory can be rigorously tested, understanding improved and effective weed management techniques identified.

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.1472-4642.2008.00521.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,154

Metadata

Authors
Catford, J. A., Jansson, R., & Nilsson, C.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12-08
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
22-40
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
OpenAlex
W2135464230
Cited by
1,154
References
4
FWCI
22.82
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: Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00521.x
The paper
Catford, J. A., Jansson, R., & Nilsson, C. (2009). Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00521.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.