ArticleScientific reports2025
Analysing factors underlying the reporting of established non-native species.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- A Global Account of Established Non-Native Fish Species.Global change biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A nexus of natural and human variables mediate the success of non-native species that threaten global biodiversity and ecological stability. However, the relative importance and interplays among relevant factors has not been holistically approached. To identify spatial differences and potential connections in relevant natural and human drivers, we analyzed the number of non-native species established in European countries using a newly collated database of established non-native species. We employ a series of broadscale national predictors classified into 'research', 'economy', 'environment & culture', and 'land-use' to predict successful establishment. Our null models, which assume the distribution of non-native species mirrors that of each predictor, accurately predicted non-native species numbers across European countries. However, a few countries were identified as outliers, having significantly over- or underrepresented non-native species numbers based on adjusted quasi-Poisson distribution quantiles. A network analysis of non-native species compositions identified these regions to be central hubs (e.g. Germany, France, and Switzerland), but also highlighted distinct spatial similarities across European countries. Combinations of the predictors 'economy', 'research', and 'environment & culture' explained the largest shares of differences in the number of established non-native species among European countries as well as their reporting rates over time. Individual drivers alone were insufficient to wholly explain national differences, whereas interacting driver categories ultimately accounted for the largest shares of variance. This analysis demonstrates the breadth of predictors that mediate successful establishment, and particularly highlights the relevance of overlooked historical-cultural facets affecting biological invasions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.