ArticlePloS one2026
Expert perceptions of the relative importance of ecological impacts of biological invasions.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive species pose a major threat to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Although it is widely recognized that invasion impacts differ across habitats and taxonomic groups, a systematic evaluation of their perceived ecological importance has remained unexplored. We surveyed over 400 international experts in invasion science to systematically assess the importance of the 19 different types of ecological impacts across habitats, taxa, and levels of biological organization. We found consistent patterns in expert perceptions, where changes in assemblage structure, population size, and species loss were rated as most important, while others, like soundscape, fire regime, and microclimate, consistently received lower scores. Scores between taxa varied more than scores between habitats, while responses were more consistent among respondents with greater experience in the field. Our results highlight the impact types that would require greater management efforts (i.e., the higher scores), as well as those that could benefit from further research (i.e., the lower scores).
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.