ReviewBioscience2024
Framing challenges and polarized issues in invasion science: toward an interdisciplinary agenda.
Review in Bioscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The rarest invaders: systematic global evidence for the conservation-invasion paradox in plants.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
- Traditional utilization of weeds and ethnic ecological wisdom in Longsheng terraces-a study based on globally important agricultural heritage systems.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2025Article
- Parallels and discrepancies between non-native species introductions and human migration.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Conceptual and ethical considerations in invasion science.Bioscience · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a hyperconnected world, framing and managing biological invasions poses complex and contentious challenges, affecting socioeconomic and environmental sectors. This complexity distinguishes the field and fuels polarized debates. In the present article, we synthesize four contentious issues in invasion science that are rarely addressed together: vocabulary usage, the potential benefits of nonnative species, perceptions shifting because of global change, and rewilding practices and biological invasions. Researchers have predominantly focused on single issues; few have addressed multiple components of the debate within or across disciplinary boundaries. Ignoring the interconnected nature of these issues risks overlooking crucial cross-links. We advocate for interdisciplinary approaches that better integrate social and natural sciences. Although they are challenging, interdisciplinary collaborations offer hope to overcome polarization issues in invasion science. These may bridge disagreements, facilitate knowledge exchange, and reshape invasion science narratives. Finally, we present a contemporary agenda to advance future research, management, and constructive dialogue.
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.