The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence
Abstract
Aim The study of biological invasions has long considered species invasiveness and community invasibility as separate questions. Only recently, there is an increasing recognition that integrating these two questions offers new insights into the mechanisms of biological invasions. This recognition has renewed the interest in two long‐standing and seemingly contradictory hypotheses proposed by Darwin: phylogenetic relatedness of invaders to native communities is predicted to promote naturalization because of appropriate niche‐adaptation but is at the same time predicted to hamper naturalization because of niche overlap with native species. The latter is known as Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis. Location Global. Methods and Results We review the studies that have tested these hypotheses and summarize their largely inconsistent outcomes. We argue that most of the inconsistency arises from discrepancies in the applied conceptual frameworks and analytical approaches and not from different model organisms and different ecological contexts. First, observed patterns and results can be seriously flawed by different spatial and phylogenetic scales, which do not equally reveal community assembly mechanisms. Second, different studies have used different metrics, which may test for different specific hypotheses. Thus, we propose a set of metrics derived from the alpha niche concept to measure invaders relatedness to native communities. Finally, approximating species niche differentiation from phylogenetic relatedness is not exempt of assumptions, and invasive species naturalization may result from various ecological mechanisms of biotic resistance that are not necessarily revealed by species phylogeny alone. Main conclusions The quest for resolving the conundrum of Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis will only be successful if appropriate scales, metrics and analytical tests are thoroughly considered. We give several recommendations and suggest, whenever possible, to use trait‐based measurements of species dissimilarity as the most promising avenue to unravel the mechanisms driving alien species invasions.
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
Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity
Chesson, P. (2000) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343 · Cited by 6,645
Positive Interactions of Nonindigenous Species: Invasional Meltdown?
Simberloff, D., & Von Holle, B. (1999) · Biological Invasions · doi:10.1023/a:1010086329619 · Cited by 2,231
Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities
Walther, G.-R., Roques, A., Hulme, P. E., Sykes, M. T., Pyšek, P., Kühn, I., Zobel, M., Bacher, S., Botta-Dukát, Z., & Bugmann, H. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.008 · Cited by 1,424
Cited by
Lavergne, S., Mouquet, N., Thuiller, W., & Ronce, O. (2010) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144628 · Cited by 757
Self-citationMaldonado-Gómez, M. X., Martínez, I., Bottacini, F., O’Callaghan, A., Ventura, M., van Sinderen, D., Hillmann, B., Vangay, P., Knights, D., Hutkins, R. W., et al. (2016) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2016.09.001 · Cited by 517
The dispersal of alien species redefines biogeography in the Anthropocene
Capinha, C., Essl, F., Seebens, H., Moser, D., & Pereira, H. M. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8913 · Cited by 462
Effect of allelopathy on plant performance: a meta‐analysis
Zhang, Z., Liu, Y., Yuan, L., Weber, E., & van Kleunen, M. (2021) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.13627 · Cited by 303
The influence of interspecific interactions on species range expansion rates
Svenning, J., Gravel, D., Holt, R. D., Schurr, F. M., Thuiller, W., Münkemüller, T., Schiffers, K. H., Dullinger, S., Edwards, T. C., Hickler, T., et al. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00574.x · Cited by 269
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thuiller, W., Gallien, L., Boulangeat, I., De Bello, F., Münkemüller, T., Roquet, C., & Lavergne, S.
- Venue
- Diversity and Distributions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04-13
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 461-475
- ISSN
- 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-9516
- 1472-4642
- OpenAlex
- W1588506111
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.32
- 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: Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00645.x
- The paper
- Thuiller, W., Gallien, L., Boulangeat, I., De Bello, F., Münkemüller, T., Roquet, C., & Lavergne, S. (2010). Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00645.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.