ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2026
State lines and species divides: Inconsistencies and opportunities in invasive species policies across the eastern United States.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- State lines and species divides: Inconsistencies and opportunities in invasive species policies across the eastern United States.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Invasive species are a threat to ecological and anthropogenic systems. In the United States, policies to coordinate funding and precipitate management action have been slow to emerge at the federal level, and there is a patchwork of regulation and legislation at the state level. This means that managers and policymakers, already facing limited budgets and evolving goals for action on invasive species, also face detrimental policy inconsistencies across states. Although previous research has explored state-level invasive plant policy, policy relating to invasive invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (and across all three) is understudied. We expand upon previous taxa-limited examinations of public policy related to invasives, looking across all taxonomic groups, including plants, to explore coherency of state regulations. We expanded the taxonomicscope of a database of policies in 21 contiguous eastern US states and used it to examine (in)consistencies in spatial trends for invasive species listed in policies across and within taxonomic groups. We examined the coherency of neighboring states and regional overlap of named species. We also analyzed correlations between distances among states and the species listed in the policy to examine regional trends. We found 1117 policy segments relevant to invasive species with 448 naming at least one taxon at the genus or species level. Of these, 35.3% were plants, 19.9% were invertebrates, and 44.8% were vertebrates. The distribution of taxa contained within policies varied across states, underscoring high variability in the proportion of taxa listed in the policies of neighboring states. Even lower policy coherency existed at the regional scale, particularly for invertebrate and vertebrate taxa. Our results indicate that policy inconsistency exists across all taxonomic groups, and the lack of attention to invasive invertebrates and vertebrates across state policies is particularly concerning. Policy inconsistency means that proactive states are susceptible to invasion from neighboring states where invasives are not similarly regulated. There is an opportunity to improve coordination between states to reduce vulnerability to invasives due to policy inconsistency.
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.