SynthesisBMC ecology and evolution2024
A systematic review of poeciliid fish invasions in Africa.
Synthesis in BMC ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating climate scenarios and advanced modeling to predict freshwater fish invasions: insights from Carassius species in Iran.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Turkish freshwaters as a case of rising invasion risk of aquarium fishes under climate change.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Growth and development of two predator species fed a diet of genetically engineered mosquitoes.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis review compiles and synthesises the existing information concerning non-native poeciliid introductions to Africa. The recent upsurge in research on invasive poeciliids has revealed their widespread occurrence in Africa.
resultsWithin the 87 relevant articles, 74% reported on the presence of Gambusia spp., 33% on P. reticulata, 19% on X. hellerii, 11% on X. maculatus, and 5% on other ornamental poeciliids. Overall, poeciliids have been documented as introduced to 25 different countries in Africa. With Gambusia spp. being introduced to 16 countries and P. reticulata to 19 countries. Our results are representative of the current state of research on invasive poeciliids in Africa. There was a concentration of studies in South Africa, with limited research elsewhere. Current distribution data is relatively patchy, although widespread surveys of multiple river systems in Morocco and South Africa, confirmed widespread and abundant established poeciliid populations. The ecological impacts of invasive poeciliids in Africa remain understudied but evidence indicates deleterious effects on native fish, invertebrates, and amphibians, many of which are critically endangered or endemic.
conclusionCurrent research is limited in reporting from certain countries and ecological impacts. An increased effort to monitor species composition in vulnerable waterbodies, especially in the many African countries where invasive poeciliids are reported, should be completed to reveal further established populations. Future research should prioritise quantifying the ecological impacts of invasive poeciliids in the field and identifying both vulnerable and resistant native ecosystems to guide future management decisions.
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.