ReviewToxics2026
Micro(nano)plastics and Terrestrial Invasive Plants.
Review in Toxics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) have emerged as pervasive contaminants across diverse environments-including soil, water, and the atmosphere-posing substantial risks to resident organisms. Concurrently, alien plant invasion represents a significant driver of environmental change, introducing considerable ecological risks to terrestrial ecosystems. Synthesizing evidence from 26 original research articles, this review examines the bidirectional interactions between micro(nano)plastics (MNPs) and terrestrial invasive plants. A growing body of evidence indicates that MNPs alter the growth and performance of both invasive and native plants. In most documented cases, MNPs appear to enhance the competitive ability of invasive plants, thereby elevating their invasion potential. However, counterexamples exist wherein MNPs strengthen the competitiveness of native plants, consequently mitigating invasion risk. These divergent outcomes are likely attributable to a suite of influencing factors, notably the characteristics of the MNPs (e.g., type, size, concentration), the specific invasive and native plant species involved, and variations in experimental conditions. Key mechanistic pathways involve MNPs-induced disturbances in soil microecology-particularly nutrient dynamics and rhizosphere microbiomes-and allelopathic interactions. Conversely, invasive plants may adsorb/absorb MNPs and subsequently modify their environmental fate and behaviors (e.g., degradation, transport). Finally, we delineate critical knowledge gaps and propose prioritized directions for future research. This review advances our understanding of the ecological risks associated with plant invasions in an era of pervasive MNP pollution and offers a scientific foundation for developing informed management strategies.
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.