Do invasive species show higher phenotypic plasticity than native species and, if so, is it adaptive? A meta-analysis.

By A. M. Davidson, Michael D. Jennions, A. Nicotra. Ecology Letters, 2011

1,213 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4879335842e9bceafb4a3f653b44d8a6d5ddbce6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

The Ecology and Evolution of Alien Plants (2018, neutral): “(Davidson et al. 2011) showed in a meta-analysis that invasive species were more plastic in growth, morphology and physiology than native species, but this did not result in fitness advantages.”
Timing is everything: does early and late germination favor invasions by herbaceous alien plants? (2016, neutral): “The role of phenotypic plasticity in the establishment of alien species and in promoting species’ invasiveness, however, remains unclear (Lande 2015), with contrasting results being reported in many species traits (Davidson et al. 2011; Godoy et al. 2011; Palacio-Lopez and Gianoli 2011).”
Applications of next-generation sequencing to the study of biological invasions (2015, background): “, 2013), which provides insight into the relative importance of these two mechanisms (Davidson et al., 2011; Fierst, 2011).”
Traits to stay, traits to move: a review of functional traits to assess sensitivity and adaptive capacity of temperate and boreal trees to climate change (2016, background): “Phenological plasticity has also been evoked as a characteristic that could confer invasiveness (Daehler 2003; Davidson et al. 2011; Drenovsky et al. 2012; Godoy et al. 2012), and favour range expansion.”
Plant–soil feedbacks of exotic plant species across life forms: a meta-analysis (2014, neutral): “We used r = 1 as this is the most conservative approach (Davidson et al. 2011) and 217 we obtained similar results when r = 0.”