Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

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

Thuiller, Wilfried, Gallien, Laure, Boulangeat, Isabelle, De Bello, Francesco, Münkemüller, Tamara, Roquet, Cristina, Lavergne, Sébastien·2010·Diversity and Distributions

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00645.x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 287

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.