Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28450747›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Accessible areas in ecological niche comparisons of invasive species: Recognized but still overlooked.

Huijie Qiao, Luis E Escobar, A Townsend Peterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Huijie QiaoKey Laboratory of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Luis E EscobarMinnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA. lescobar@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5735-2750
A Townsend PetersonBiodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence Kansas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding biological invasions is crucial for their control and prevention. Specially, establishing whether invasive species operate within the constraint of conservative ecological niches, or if niche shifts occur at all commonly as part of the invasion process, is indispensable to identifying and anticipating potential areas of invasion. Ecological niche modeling (ENM) has been used to address such questions, but improvements and debate in study design, model evaluation, and methods are still needed to mature this field. We reanalyze data for Gray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), native to North America, but invasive in Europe. Our main finding was that, when the analysis extent is established carefully based on analogous sets of environmental conditions, all evidence of niche shifts disappears, suggesting that previous reports of niche shifts for this species are artifacts of methods and interpretation, rather than biological reality. Niche conservatism should be tested only within appropriate, similar, environmental spaces that are accessible to both species or populations being compared, thus avoiding model extrapolation related to model transfers. Testing for environmental similarity between native and invaded areas is critical to identifying niche shifts during species invasion robustly, but also in applications of ENM to understanding temporal dimensions of niche dynamics.

Indexed as

EcosystemIntroduced SpeciesAnimalsEuropeModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalNorth AmericaSciuridae

Identifiers

PMID28450747
PMCPMC5430674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.