Articlenpj biodiversity2026
The rarest invaders: systematic global evidence for the conservation-invasion paradox in plants.
Article in npj biodiversity, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Conservation-Invasion Paradox (CIP) refers to species that are threatened or declining within their native ranges establish invasive populations elsewhere. While this paradox has been documented primarily in animals, its prevalence, structure, and drivers in plants remain poorly understood. Investigating the CIP is crucial for linking mechanisms that underlie both species decline and invasion success, and offers insights into biodiversity change in the Anthropocene. Here, we provide the first global, systematic assessment of the CIP in vascular plants by integrating three global alien flora databases with three conservation assessment databases. Using reproducible cross-database criteria (the simultaneous occurrence of invasive status in at least one global alien flora database and conservation concern in at least one global conservation assessment database), we identified 89 plant species under the CIP. Threatened plant species were approximately 10 times less likely to naturalize and 17 times less likely to become invasive than non-threatened species, making the CIP a genuinely paradoxical outcome. CIP plant species are concentrated in the Americas and East-Southeast Asia and exhibit strong anthropogenic signals, with dominant human uses and persistent threats from agriculture, overexploitation, and development. Our findings demonstrate that the CIP arises from a spatial decoupling between invasion success and native range persistence, driven by the same human valuation processes that promotes translocation and intensify native-range pressures. The CIP also exposes a mismatch between biological invasion and conservation frameworks, where separate regulatory systems independently assess invasive status and conservation concern, revealing a governance gap for species exhibiting both conditions simultaneously.
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.