Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39676232›Full record

ReviewGlobal change biology2024

A Review of Theory: Comparing Invasion Ecology and Climate Change-Induced Range Shifting.

Haley D Flickinger, Jeffrey S Dukes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global change biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A general framework for predicting the ecological effects of range expansions in marine systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Haley D FlickingerDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0378-4704
Jeffrey S DukesDepartment of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9482-7743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human actions have led to large-scale shifts in the distributions of species, which have accelerated over recent decades. Two contributing factors include the introduction of non-native species to new regions, and more recently, the shift of species into new ranges to track a human-altered climate. While the context of these species redistributions is different, we argue here that scientists studying the effects of either invasion or range shifting are interested in the same underlying mechanistic questions: (1) What traits make a species likely to survive in a new location? and (2) Which recipient ecosystems are likely to support a newly arrived species? A survey of the theoretical literature surrounding these topics demonstrates the usefulness of this comparison and highlights key differences between range shifting and invasion in factors including genetic diversity, climatic tolerance, local adaptation, and coevolutionary history. This review does not support the blanket application of an invasion framework to climate change-induced range shifts. However, we suggest the use of modified invasion theories, experimental designs, and risk assessments could aid in predicting outcomes and prioritizing management resources for climate-threatened species.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeEcologyAnimal DistributionAnimalsEcosystemIntroduced Speciesclimate changeconservationinvasionnativenon‐nativerange shifttheory

Identifiers

PMID39676232
PMCPMC11647056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.