Cited by 90Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Troubling travellers: are ecologically harmful alien species associated with particular introduction pathways?

Open access
Pergl, Jan, Pyšek, Petr, Bacher, Sven, Essl, Franz, Genovesi, Piero, Harrower, Colin A., Hulme, Philip E., Jeschke, Jonathan E. +10 more·2017·NeoBiota

Abstract

Prioritization of introduction pathways is seen as an important component of the management of biological invasions. We address whether established alien plants, mammals, freshwater fish and terrestrial invertebrates with known ecological impacts are associated with particular introduction pathways (release, escape, contaminant, stowaway, corridor and unaided). We used the information from the European alien species database DAISIE (www.europe-aliens.org) supplemented by the EASIN catalogue (European Alien Species Information Network), and expert knowledge. Plants introduced by the pathways release, corridor and unaided were disproportionately more likely to have ecological impacts than those introduced as contaminants. In contrast, impacts were not associated with particular introduction pathways for invertebrates, mammals or fish. Thus, while for plants management strategies should be targeted towards the appropriate pathways, for animals, management should focus on reducing the total number of taxa introduced, targeting those pathways responsible for high numbers of introductions. However, regardless of taxonomic group, having multiple introduction pathways increases the likelihood of the species having an ecological impact. This may simply reflect that species introduced by multiple pathways have high propagule pressure and so have a high probability of establishment. Clearly, patterns of invasion are determined by many interacting factors and management strategies should reflect this complexity.

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 · 10.3897/neobiota.32.10199

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • On average, invasive alien species with the highest impacts are associated with multiple pathways.

    “On average, IAS with the highest impacts are associated with multiple pathways (Pergl et al., 2017).”

    From Scientists' warning on invasive alien species (2020) · cites this paper as Pergl et al., 2017

    In “The role of multiple pathways” (page unavailable), the paper reports that, across taxa, species associated with multiple pathways were more likely to have a recorded ecological impact. But “Relating impact to pathways: what data are available?” explains that the analysis used a yes/no impact classification, which does not distinguish the species with the highest impacts. The claim’s multiple-pathway association is supported; its restriction to the highest-impact species is not. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. DAISIE (Eds) (2009) Handbook of alien species in Europe. Springer, Berlin.
  2. Kenis M, Bacher S, Baker RHA, Branquart E, Brunel S, Holt J, Hulme PE, MacLeod A, Pergl J, Petter F, Pyšek P, Schrader G, Sissons A, Starfinger U, Schaffner U (2012) New protocols to assess the environmental impact of pests in the EPPO decision support scheme for pest risk analysis. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 46: 21-27. doi: 10.1111/epp.2527 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., Bacher, S., Essl, F., Genovesi, P., Harrower, C. A., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. E., Kenis, M., Kühn, I., Perglová, I., Rabitsch, W., Roques, A., Roy, D. B., Roy, H. E., Vilà, M., Winter, M., & Nentwig, W.
Affiliations
  • Czech Academy of Sciences (CZ)
  • Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany (CZ)
  • University of Fribourg (CH)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (IT)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
  • Lincoln University (NZ)
  • CAB International (GB)
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
  • Environment Agency Austria (AT)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
  • German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Venue
NeoBiota
Published
2017-01-04
Volume
32
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 1314-2488 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-0033
OpenAlex
W2570264900
Cited by
90
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeoBiota (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • ZooKeys (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Phaidra (Universität Wien) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ASEP (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Biodiversa+
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (JE 288/7-1, JE 288/9-1, 288/9-1)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-13-EBID-0003)
  • Grantová Agentura České Republiky (GB14-36079G, RVO 67,985,939, GAP504/11/1028, 67985939)
  • Akademie Věd České Republiky (RVO [67985939], 67985939, 14‐36079G, project RVO 67985939, P504/11/1028)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (ceh020002, ceh020009, ceh020004)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine Ecology and Invasive Species
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
introduction pathways, biological invasions, introduced species, ecological impacts, propagule pressure, invasive plants, invasive mammals, invasive freshwater fish, stowaways, contaminants, corridors, invasive species management

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