Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30963838›Full record

SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2019

A global meta-analysis of the ecological impacts of alien species on native amphibians.

Ana L Nunes, Jennifer M Fill, Sarah J Davies, Marike Louw, Alexander D Rebelo, Corey J Thorp, Giovanni Vimercati, John Measey

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana L Nunes1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Jennifer M Fill1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Sarah J Davies1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Marike Louw1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Alexander D Rebelo1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Corey J Thorp1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Giovanni Vimercati1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
John Measey1 Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch , South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The exponential increase in species introductions during the Anthropocene has brought about a major loss of biodiversity. Amphibians have suffered large declines, with more than 16% considered to be threatened by invasive species. We conducted a global meta-analysis of the impacts of alien species on native amphibians to determine which aspects of amphibian ecology are most affected by plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, or mammal introductions. Measures of fitness were most strongly affected; amphibian performance was consistently lower in the presence of alien species. While exposure to alien species caused a significant decrease in amphibian behavioural activity when compared with a no species control, this response was stronger towards a control of native impacting species. This indicates a high degree of prey naiveté towards alien species and highlights the importance of using different types of controls in empirical studies. Alien invertebrates had the greatest overall impact on amphibians. This study sets a new agenda for research on biological invasions, highlighting the lack of studies investigating the impacts of alien species on amphibian terrestrial life-history stages. It also emphasizes the strong ecological impacts that alien species have on amphibian fitness and suggests that future introductions or global spread of alien invertebrates could strongly exacerbate current amphibian declines.

Indexed as

Animal DistributionIntroduced SpeciesAmphibiansAnimalsGenetic FitnessInvertebratesPlantsPopulation DynamicsVertebratesalien speciesamphibian declinefitnessinvertebratesliterature reviewprey naiveté

Identifiers

PMID30963838
PMCPMC6408899
OpenAlexW2917642054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.