“…In this respect, meta-analyses employing quantitative methods are conceivably more objective than review articles, because they should be less susceptible to preconceived notions. Although some meta-analyses concluded that the impacts of NIS are stronger and/ or more detrimental than those of indigenous species (Ferlian et al, 2018;Paolucci, MacIsaac, & Ricciardi, 2013;Salo, Korpimaki, Banks, Nordstrom, & Dickman, 2007;Simberloff, Souza, Nuñez, Barrios-Garcia, & Bunn, 2012;van Hengstum, Hooftman, Oostermeijer, Tienderen, & Mack, 2014;Vilá et al, 2011;Wood et al, 2017;Yoon & Read, 2016), many suggested positive influences and/or that the purported negative effects of NIS are not supported by evidence (Charlebois, Sargent, & Maherali, 2017;Gurevitch & Padilla, 2004;Norkko et al, 2011;Pintor, Byers, & Anderson, 2015;Radville, Gonda-King, Gómez, Kaplan, & Preisser Evan, 2014;Reise, Olenin, & Thieltges, 2006), and most found variable and context-dependent impacts (Cameron, Vilà, Cabeza, & Sykes, 2016;Guy-Haim et al, 2018;Higgins & Vander Zanden, 2010;Howard, Therriault, & Côté, 2017;Martin, Newton, & Bullock, 2017;Nelson et al, 2017;Potgieter et al, 2017;Pysek et al, 2008;Qiu, 2015;Thomsen et al, 2014;Twardochleb, Olden, & Larson, 2013;Vaz et al, 2018;Ward & Ricciardi, 2007), thus hindering broad generalizations.…”