Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37593753›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2023

Neophytes may promote hybridization and adaptations to a changing planet.

Ingmar R Staude, Jana Ebersbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Ingmar R StaudeInstitute of Biology Leipzig University Leipzig Germany.
Jana EbersbachInstitute of Biology Leipzig University Leipzig Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human activities erode geographic barriers, facilitating hybridization among previously isolated taxa. However, limited empirical research exists on the consequences of introduced species (neophytes) for hybridization and subsequent evolutionary outcomes. To address this knowledge gap, we employed a macroecological approach. First, we examined the spatial and phylogenetic overlap between neophytes and hybrids by integrating the Plants of the World Online database with the Global Naturalized Alien Flora database. Second, leveraging the largest dated plant phylogeny available, we compared diversification rates between genera containing hybrids and neophytes versus those without. Third, focusing on the extensively studied hybrid flora of Britain, we studied the spatial distributions of hybrids in relation to neophyte and native parents, assessing potential adaptations to anthropogenic disturbances and impacts on native species. Overall, our findings highlight positive ties between contemporary biodiversity redistribution and hybridization. Spatially (across countries) and phylogenetically (across genera), neophyte incidence was positively associated with hybrid incidence. Genera comprising both hybrids and neophytes displayed significantly higher diversification rates. Neophyte hybrids primarily occupied areas with a higher human footprint, with limited evidence of hybrids threatening native species throughout their range in more natural habitats. These results challenge the notion that species naturalizations and hybridizations exclusively yield negative outcomes for biodiversity. While it is conceivable that anthropogenic hybridization may facilitate recombination of genetic variation and contribute to conserving genetic diversity in disturbed environments, further research is needed to fully understand these processes.

Indexed as

anthropogenic hybridizationbiodiversity redistributionbiotic and genetic homogenizationdiversificationhuman footprintnon‐natives

Identifiers

PMID37593753
PMCPMC10427993

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.