Species invasion is one of the leading mechanisms of global environmental change, particularly in freshwater ecosystems. We used the Food and Agriculture Organization's Database of Invasive Aquatic Species to study invasion rates and to analyze invasion pathways within Europe. Of the 123 aquatic species introduced into six contrasting European countries, the average percentage established is 63%, well above the 5%–20% suggested by Williamson's "tens" rule. The introduction and establishment transitions are independent of each other, and species that became widely established did so because their introduction was attempted in many countries, not because of a better establishment capability. The most frequently introduced aquatic species in Europe are freshwater fishes. We describe clear introduction pathways of aquatic species into Europe and three types of country are observed: "recipient and donor" (large, midlatitude European countries, such as France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, that give and receive the most introductions), "recipient" (most countries, but particularly southern countries, which give few species but receive many), and "neither recipient nor donor" (only two countries). A path analysis showed that the numbers of species given and received are mediated by the size (area) of the country and population density, but not gross domestic product per capita.

Given an observed test statistic and its degrees of freedom, one may compute the observed P value with most statistical packages. It is unknown to what extent test statistics and P values are congruent in published medical papers. We checked the congruence of statistical results reported in all the papers of volumes 409–412 of Nature (2001) and a random sample of 63 results from volumes 322–323 of BMJ (2001). We also tested whether the frequencies of the last digit of a sample of 610 test statistics deviated from a uniform distribution (i.e., equally probable digits). 11.6% (21 of 181) and 11.1% (7 of 63) of the statistical results published in Nature and BMJ respectively during 2001 were incongruent, probably mostly due to rounding, transcription, or type-setting errors. At least one such error appeared in 38% and 25% of the papers of Nature and BMJ, respectively. In 12% of the cases, the significance level might change one or more orders of magnitude. The frequencies of the last digit of statistics deviated from the uniform distribution and suggested digit preference in rounding and reporting. This incongruence of test statistics and P values is another example that statistical practice is generally poor, even in the most renowned scientific journals, and that quality of papers should be more controlled and valued.