How strongly do interactions with closely‐related native species influence plant invasions? Darwin's naturalization hypothesis assessed on Mediterranean islands

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Phylogenetic relatedness and plant invader success across two spatial scales (2009, background): “Second, they could be behaving phylogenetically idiosyncratically meaning that there are no consistent phylogenetic patterns (e.g. Lambdon & Hulme, 2006).”
A global comparison of plant invasions on oceanic islands (2010, background): “However, it could not be confirmed for Hawaii (Daehler, 2001) or the Mediterranean islands (Lambdon and Hulme, 2006) that species that are closely related to established native or non-native species are less likely to invade.”
Multispecies comparison reveals that invasive and native plants differ in their traits but not in their plasticity (2011, background): “When assessing differences between invasive and native species, it is important to take phylogenetically independent contrast controls into account as well as to ensure that within pairs both species occur in similar ecosystems (Lambdon & Hulme 2006).”
Resolving Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: a quest for evidence (2010, background): “As originally pointed out by Lambdon & Hulme (2006) and Procheş et al. (2008), the quest for evidence for Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis at very large scales is probably meaningless if it supposes to test the outcome of processes of local species interactions and niche gap-filling (Duncan &…”