Follow-up analyses of the AFLP data published in Lachmuth et al. (2010) revealed that wrong peak height thresholds had been applied during genotyping of one of the AFLP primer combinations. This resulted in erroneous presences or absences at some loci. We have subsequently resubmitted a corrected AFLP data set to DRYAD (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.1813.2). Re-analyses of the corrected data brought about changes in the results and the design of the structure analyses as well as slight changes in the absolute values of measures of genetic diversities and parameter estimates of all statistical analyses. Despite these changes, all statistical analyses yielded qualitatively the same results as reported in the original publication. Consequently, the major interpretations and conclusions of this publication remain unaltered. Re-analyses of the corrected data yielded slight changes in the measures of genetic diversity (see Original Table 1 and New Table 1) and in the structure results. For the European range, only two clusters were identified, which contain the introduction sites Mazamet and Verviers, and their presumable descendent populations, respectively. The introduction site Calais is now largely assigned to the Mazamet cluster, whereas the Bremen introduction centre is completely allocated to the Verviers route. The four historically documented introductions to Verviers, Mazamet, Bremen and Calais thus show even stronger differences in invasion success than reported in Lachmuth et al. (2010). In all subsequent statistical analyses (Isolation by distance, amova, variation in genetic diversity), the absolute values of parameter estimates and sometimes P-values changed. However, the analyses yielded qualitatively the same results as in the original publication (all effects that were previously significant at P < 0.05 remain significant). The main interpretations and conclusions of the original publication thus remain unaltered. After correction of the AFLP absence–presence data, the following results changed between the original analyses and the re-analyses of the data. For the European range (structure analysis 3, see Original Fig. 1 and New Fig. 1), only two clusters (K = 2) were identified, which contain the introduction sites Mazamet (a subset of cluster B in analysis 1, Europe-S) and Verviers (a subset of cluster C in analysis 1, Europe-N), and their presumable descendent populations, respectively (New Fig. 1, New Fig. 2D, E). The introduction site Calais was largely assigned to the Mazamet cluster, but shows higher assignment to the Verviers cluster than the populations descending from Mazamet. The Bremen introduction centre is assigned completely to the Verviers route. Thus, only two separate clusters (see New Table 1; see Original Fig. 2 and New Fig. 2) were distinguished as random effect in subsequent analyses. Also, with the updated AFLP genotyping, structure analysis 3 no longer identified four strongly bottlenecked populations (Deggendorf, Genthod, Lausanne, Vilette) as separate clusters. This means that the previous structure analysis 4 (without these bottlenecked populations) was no longer necessary. However, these populations still have low values of genetic diversity (see New Table 1). Interpretation: The four historically documented introductions to Verviers, Mazamet, Bremen and Calais show even stronger differences in invasion success than reported in Lachmuth et al. (2010). The previously identified 'strongly bottlenecked' populations still have low genetic diversity, but seem less differentiated from the other populations. Old result: In the African range, the probability of population assignment (Q) to cluster C increases as minimum winter temperature decreases (F1,17 = 14.1, P < 0.01, Akaike's information criterion AIC: −10.8, Original Fig. 3). New result: In the African range, the probability of population assignment (Q) to cluster C increases as minimum winter temperature decreases (F1,17 = 4.7, P < 0.05, Akaike's information criterion AIC: −19.6, New Fig. 3). Interpretation: As in the original study, we find a significant relationship between the assignment probability of native populations to cluster C and minimum winter temperature. Original results: Entire African sample, r = 0.6, Mantel-P < 0.01, slope = 0.0001; Africa-N region, r = 0.4, Mantel-P < 0.01, slope = 0.0002; Entire European sample: r = 0.3, Mantel-P < 0.05, slope = 0.00006; Europe-N region, r = 0.3, Mantel-P < 0.05, slope = 0.00005. New results: Entire African sample, r = 0.6, Mantel-P < 0.01, slope = 0.0002; Africa-N region, r = 0.4, Mantel-P < 0.01, slope = 0.0004; European sample, r = 0.3, Mantel-P < 0.05, slope = 0.0001; Europe-N region, r = 0.3, Mantel-P < 0.01, slope = 0.0001. Interpretation: As in the original study, all regions show patterns of isolation by distance. See Original Table 2 and New Table 2. Interpretation: Although the absolute values change slightly, the interpretation of amova results remains unaltered. Old values: Africa-N, 0; Africa-S, 4; Europe-N, 1; Europe-S, 1. New values: Africa-N, 0; Africa-S, 3; Europe-N, 2; and Europe-S, 1. Interpretation: Numbers of private alleles for the different subregions were low in both the original analysis and the re-analysis. Thus, population differentiation mainly resulted from shifts in band frequencies. Original results: Genetic diversity of populations (Hj, PLP and Br) varied between 0.12–0.23 (mean 0.18), 0.23–0.58 (mean 0.41) and 1.20–1.44 (mean 1.33) per population, respectively (Original Table 1). European populations showed a decrease in Hj and Br compared to the Africa-N source populations (Hj: F1,45 = 16.3, P < 0.001, Br: F1,45 = 14.6, P < 0.001, see also Original Fig. 4A). This also held after omitting the four strongly bottlenecked European populations (Deggendorf, Genthod, Lausanne, Vilette, Table 1). In contrast, PLP did not differ significantly between native and invasive populations (F1,45 = 0.4, P > 0.05, see also Original Fig. 4B). Within Africa, the lowland populations (Africa-S) were slightly more diverse than the highland populations (Africa-N), but the difference was not significant. In Europe, southern populations (Europe-S) were significantly less diverse than the Central European (Europe-N) ones except for PLP (Hj: F1,30 = 6.2, P < 0.05, Br: F1,30 = 4.7, P < 0.05, PLP: F1,30 = 3.2, P > 0.05; Original Fig. 4). The different diversity measures showed the same temporal development along the four European invasion routes. All of them increased with population age (Hj: χ2 (1) = 9.4, P < 0.01, Br: χ2 (1) = 11.7, P < 0.001, PLP: χ2 (1) = 11.5, P < 0.001, Original Fig. 5A, B), whereas spread rate was dropped from the minimum adequate model. A comparison of models containing either log-transformed population age or spread rate as explanatory variable further established the higher explanatory power of population age for all three measures (AIC differences: Hj: 2.4, Br: 4.1, PLP: 5.6, note that population age and spread rate were correlated (Spearman rho = −0.63, P > 0.001)). Still, spread rate as a single explanatory variable did have a significant negative effect on genetic diversity (Hj: χ2(1) = 9.4, P < 0.01, Br: χ2(1) = 11.7, P < 0.001, PLP: χ2(1) = 5.86, P < 0.05, Original Fig. 5C, D). New results: Genetic diversity of populations (Hj, PLP and Br) varied between 0.11–0.22 (mean 0.17), 0.21–0.57 (mean 0.39) and 1.18–1.42 (mean 1.31) per population, respectively (New Table 1). European populations showed a decrease in Hj and Br compared to the Africa-N source populations (Hj: F1,45 = 15.2, P < 0.001, Br: F1,45 =14.8, P < 0.001, see also New Fig. 4A). In contrast, PLP did not differ significantly between native and invasive populations (F1,45 = 0.66, P > 0.05, see also New Fig. 4B). Within Africa, the lowland populations (Africa-S) were more diverse than the highland populations in terms of Br (Africa-N, (F1,17 = 5.8, P < 0.05). In Europe, southern populations (Europe-S) were significantly less diverse than the Central European (Europe-N) ones except for PLP (Hj: F1,30 = 5.3, P < 0.05, Br: F1,30 = 4.6, P < 0.05, PLP: F1,30 = 2.7, P > 0.05; New Fig. 4). The different diversity measures showed the same temporal development along the two European invasion routes. All of them increased with population age (Hj: χ2(1) = 9.0, P < 0.01, Br: χ2 (1) = 11.6, P < 0.001, PLP: χ2 (1) = 11.9, P < 0.001, New Fig. 5A, B), whereas spread rate was dropped from the minimum adequate model. A comparison of models containing either log-transformed population age or spread rate as explanatory variable further established the higher explanatory power of population age for all three measures (AIC differences: Hj: 1.0, Br: 3.9, PLP:4.6, note that population age and spread rate were correlated (Spearman rho =−0.63, P > 0.001)). Still, spread rate as a single explanatory variable did have a significant negative effect on genetic diversity (Hj: χ2(1) = 8.0, P < 0.01, Br: χ2 (1) = 8.6, P < 0.01, PLP: χ2 (1) = 7.4, P < 0.01, New Fig. 5C, D). Interpretation: The interpretation remains the same as in the original study.