Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34938590›Full record

ArticleEcosphere (Washington, D.C)2021

Mechanistic reconciliation of community and invasion ecology.

Guillaume Latombe, David M Richardson, Melodie A McGeoch, Res Altwegg, Jane A Catford, Jonathan M Chase, Franck Courchamp, Karen J Esler, Jonathan M Jeschke, Pietro Landi and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecosphere (Washington, D.C), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. A nature-positive future with biological invasions: theory, decision support and research needs.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  4. Navigating ecological novelty towards planetary stewardship: challenges and opportunities in biodiversity dynamics in a transforming biosphere.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

15 authors.

Guillaume LatombeBioInvasions, Global Change Macroecology-Group Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University Vienna Rennweg 14 Vienna 1030 Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8589-8387
David M RichardsonCentre for Invasion Biology Department of Botany and Zoology Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9574-8297
Melodie A McGeochSchool of Biological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria 3800 Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3388-2241
Res AltweggStatistics in Ecology, Environment and Conservation Department of Statistical Sciences University of Cape Town Rondebosch 7701 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4083-6561
Jane A CatfordDepartment of Geography King's College London WC2B 4BG London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0582-5960
Jonathan M ChaseGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Deutscherplatz 5e Leipzig Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5580-4303
Franck CourchampUniversité Paris-Saclay Ecologie Systématique et Evolution CNRS AgroParisTech Orsay 91405 France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7605-4548
Karen J EslerDepartment of Conservation Ecology & Entomology and Centre for Invasion Biology Stellenbosch University Private Bag x1 Matieland 7602 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6510-727X
Jonathan M JeschkeLeibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) Müggelseedamm 310 Berlin 12587 Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3328-4217
Pietro LandiCentre for Invasion Biology Department of Mathematical Sciences Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6373-2992
John MeaseyCentre for Invasion Biology Department of Botany and Zoology Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9939-7615
Guy F MidgleyGlobal Change Biology Group Department of Botany and Zoology Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8264-0869
Henintsoa O MinoariveloCentre for Invasion Biology Department of Mathematical Sciences Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0046-7597
James G RodgerCentre for Invasion Biology Department of Mathematical Sciences Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9878-3247
Cang HuiCentre for Invasion Biology Department of Mathematical Sciences Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch 7600 South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3660-8160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community and invasion ecology have mostly grown independently. There is substantial overlap in the processes captured by different models in the two fields, and various frameworks have been developed to reduce this redundancy and synthesize information content. Despite broad recognition that community and invasion ecology are interconnected, a process-based framework synthesizing models across these two fields is lacking. Here we review 65 representative community and invasion models and propose a common framework articulated around six processes (dispersal, drift, abiotic interactions, within-guild interactions, cross-guild interactions, and genetic changes). The framework is designed to synthesize the content of the two fields, provide a general perspective on their development, and enable their comparison. The application of this framework and of a novel method based on network theory reveals some lack of coherence between the two fields, despite some historical similarities. Community ecology models are characterized by combinations of multiple processes, likely reflecting the search for an overarching theory to explain community assembly and structure, drawing predominantly on interaction processes, but also accounting largely for the other processes. In contrast, most models in invasion ecology invoke fewer processes and focus more on interactions between introduced species and their novel biotic and abiotic environment. The historical dominance of interaction processes and their independent developments in the two fields is also reflected in the lower level of coherence for models involving interactions, compared to models involving dispersal, drift, and genetic changes. It appears that community ecology, with a longer history than invasion ecology, has transitioned from the search for single explanations for patterns observed in nature to investigate how processes may interact mechanistically, thereby generating and testing hypotheses. Our framework paves the way for a similar transition in invasion ecology, to better capture the dynamics of multiple alien species introduced in complex communities. Reciprocally, applying insights from invasion to community ecology will help us understand and predict the future of ecological communities in the Anthropocene, in which human activities are weakening species' natural boundaries. Ultimately, the successful integration of the two fields could advance a predictive ecology that is urgently required in a rapidly changing world.

Indexed as

community ecologyhypothesisinvasion ecologymodelprocesstheory

Identifiers

PMID34938590
PMCPMC8647914

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.