Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges?

Open access
Parker, John D., Torchin, Mark E., Hufbauer, Ruth A., Lemoine, Nathan P., Alba, Christina, Blumenthal, Dana M., Bossdorf, Oliver, Byers, James E., Dunn, Alison M., Heckman, Robert W., Hejda, Martin, Jarošík, Vojtěch, Kanarek, Andrew R., Martin, Lynn B., Perkins, Sarah E., Pyšek, Petr, Schierenbeck, Kristina, Schlöder, Carmen, van Klinken, Rieks, Vaughn, Kurt J., Williams, Wyatt, Wolfe, Lorne M.·2013·Ecology

Abstract

A fundamental assumption in invasion biology is that most invasive species exhibit enhanced performance in their introduced range relative to their home ranges. This idea has given rise to numerous hypotheses explaining “invasion success” by virtue of altered ecological and evolutionary pressures. There are surprisingly few data, however, testing the underlying assumption that the performance of introduced populations, including organism size, reproductive output, and abundance, is enhanced in their introduced compared to their native range. Here, we combined data from published studies to test this hypothesis for 26 plant and 27 animal species that are considered to be invasive. On average, individuals of these 53 species were indeed larger, more fecund, and more abundant in their introduced ranges. The overall mean, however, belied significant variability among species, as roughly half of the investigated species ( N = 27) performed similarly when compared to conspecific populations in their native range. Thus, although some invasive species are performing better in their new ranges, the pattern is not universal, and just as many are performing largely the same across ranges.

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 · 10.1890/12-1810.1

Cites

45 of 45 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 45 references

Metadata

Authors
Parker, J. D., Torchin, M. E., Hufbauer, R. A., Lemoine, N. P., Alba, C., Blumenthal, D. M., Bossdorf, O., Byers, J. E., Dunn, A. M., Heckman, R. W., Hejda, M., Jarošík, V., Kanarek, A. R., Martin, L. B., Perkins, S. E., Pyšek, P., Schierenbeck, K., Schlöder, C., van Klinken, R., Vaughn, K. J., Williams, W., & Wolfe, L. M.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-05
Volume
94
Issue
5
Pages
985-994
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W1963525203
Cited by
275
References
45
FWCI
21.89
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: Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/12-1810.1
The paper
Parker, J. D., Torchin, M. E., Hufbauer, R. A., Lemoine, N. P., Alba, C., Blumenthal, D. M., Bossdorf, O., Byers, J. E., Dunn, A. M., Heckman, R. W., Hejda, M., Jarošík, V., Kanarek, A. R., Martin, L. B., Perkins, S. E., Pyšek, P., Schierenbeck, K., Schlöder, C., van Klinken, R., . . . Wolfe, L. M. (2013). Do invasive species perform better in their new ranges? Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1810.1

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.