Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19654223›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2009

Orchid biology: from Linnaeus via Darwin to the 21st century. Preface.

Michael F Fay, Mark W Chase

Open access · bronzeAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Identification and Characterization of thePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Floral Longevity ofFrontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2019
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Development of microsatellite markers forApplications in plant sciences · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael F FayJodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, UK. m.fay@kew.org
Mark W Chase
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orchidaceae are the largest family of flowering plants, with at least 24,000 species, and perhaps better than any other family of flowering plants, orchids represent the extreme specializations that are possible. As a result, they have long fascinated luminaries of the botanical world including Linnaeus and Darwin, but the size of the family has historically been an impediment to their study. Specifically, the lack of detailed information about relationships within the family made it difficult to formulate explicit evolutionary hypotheses for such a large group, but the advent of molecular systematics has revolutionized our understanding of the orchids. Their complex life histories make orchids particularly vulnerable to environmental change, and as result many are now threatened with extinction. In this Special Issue we present a series of 20 papers on orchid biology ranging from phylogenetics, floral evolutionary development, taxonomy, mycorrhizal associations, pollination biology, population genetics and conservation.

Indexed as

FlowersHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyMycorrhizaeOrchidaceaePollination

Identifiers

PMID19654223
PMCPMC2720656
OpenAlexW2036837867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.