ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025
Parallels and discrepancies between non-native species introductions and human migration.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. 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.
- Functional Diversity of Plant Communities Explains the Response of Soil Microbes to Plant Invasion Along a Successional Gradient.Plant, cell & environment · 2026Article
- The impacts of biological invasions.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Root microstructural traits regulate ion homeostasis in bush morning glory (Ipomoea carnea Jacq.) for invasiveness success in saline environments.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological invasions and human migrations have increased globally due to socio-economic drivers and environmental factors that have enhanced cultural, economic, and geographic connectivity. Both processes involve the movement, establishment, and spread of species, yet unfold within fundamentally different philosophical, social and biological contexts. Hence, studying biological invasions (invasion science) and human migration (migration studies) presents complex parallels that are potentially fruitful to explore. Here, we examined nuanced parallels and differences between these two phenomena, integrating historical, socio-political, and ethical perspectives. Our review underscores the need for context-specific approaches in policymaking and governance to address effectively the challenges and opportunities of human migration and harm from biological invasions. We suggest that approaches to studying the drivers of biological invasions and human migration provide an excellent opportunity for transdisciplinary research; one that acknowledges the complexities and potential insights from both fields of study. Ultimately, integrating natural and social sciences offers a promising avenue for enriching the understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing just, equitable, and sustainable solutions. However, while human migration is a clear driver of biological invasions, drawing on principles from biological invasions to understand past and current human migration risks oversimplification and the potential for harmful generalisations that disregard the intrinsic rights and cultural dynamics of human migrations. By doing so, we provide insights and frameworks to support the development of context-specific policies that respect human dignity, foster cultural diversity, and address migration challenges in ways that promote global cooperation and justice. This interdisciplinary approach highlights the potential for transdisciplinary research that acknowledges complexities in both fields, ultimately enriching our understanding of invasion biology and migration dynamics while pursuing equitable and sustainable solutions.
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.