ArticleScientific reports2020
Introduced non-native mangroves express better growth performance than co-occurring native mangroves.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of the ecological and economic outcomes of mangrove restoration.Nature communications · 2021Pooled it
- Xylem anatomy and pit architecture but not perforation-plate types shape hydraulic strategies against hypersaline and drought stress in eight woody mangroves.Tree physiology · 2026Article
- Distinct physiological and functional responses in leaves and roots of co-occurring mangroves: contrasting invasiveFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mangroves are salt-tolerant woody species occurring in tropical/subtropical coastal habitats. Plantation of fast-growing non-native mangrove species has been used as a tool for mangrove restoration/reforestation in several countries. However, the fast-growth ability can make recently introduced species invasive as they can possibly replace co-occurring native mangroves through expressing higher growth performance and phenotypic plasticity. Therefore, quantifying growth differences between native versus non-native mangrove species is important for forest ecology and management. In this meta-analysis, we compared the growth performance of non-native and native mangrove species pairs by analysing all available results in the literature (33 studies). We found that non-native mangrove species performed better than co-occurring native mangrove species in their introduced regions (Log response ratio = 0.51 ± 0.05) and they also expressed higher trait plasticity. Therefore, these species can be potentially invasive owing to their greater competitive advantage. However, the growth difference was diminished at higher latitudes where native mangrove species seem to perform as well as non-native mangrove species do. This is the first meta-analysis on the growth response of mangroves and it has consequential management implications. We suggest that planting of non-native mangrove species should be avoided and their spread should be monitored.
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.