ArticleAnnals of botany2014
A comprehensive test of evolutionarily increased competitive ability in a highly invasive plant species.
Article in Annals of botany, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant Root Architectural Traits Mediate a Trade-Off Between Suppression and Tolerance of Competitors.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- The Role of Pathogens in Plant Invasion: Accumulation of Local Pathogens Hypothesis.Microbial ecology · 2025Review
- Herbivory may promote a non-native plant invasion at low but not high latitudes.Annals of botany · 2019Article
- Effects of admixture in native and invasive populations ofBiological invasions · 2018Article
- Article
- The Interaction between Root Herbivory and Competitive Ability of Native and Invasive-Range Populations of Brassica nigra.PloS one · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsA common hypothesis to explain plants' invasive success is that release from natural enemies in the introduced range selects for reduced allocation to resistance traits and a subsequent increase in resources available for growth and competitive ability (evolution of increased competitive ability, EICA). However, studies that have investigated this hypothesis have been incomplete as they either did not test for all aspects of competitive ability or did not select appropriate competitors.
methodsHere, the prediction of increased competitive ability was examined with the invasive plant Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) in a set of common-garden experiments that addressed these aspects by carefully distinguishing between competitive effect and response of invasive and native plants, and by using both intraspecific and interspecific competition settings with a highly vigorous neighbour, Urtica dioica (stinging nettle), which occurs in both ranges. KEY
resultsWhile the intraspecific competition results showed no differences in competitive effect or response between native and invasive plants, the interspecific competition experiment revealed greater competitive response and effect of invasive plants in both biomass and seed production.
conclusionsThe use of both intra- and interspecific competition experiments in this study revealed opposing results. While the first experiment refutes the EICA hypothesis, the second shows strong support for it, suggesting evolutionarily increased competitive ability in invasive populations of L. salicaria. It is suggested that the use of naturally co-occurring heterospecifics, rather than conspecifics, may provide a better evaluation of the possible evolutionary shift towards greater competitive ability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.