Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21444318›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2011

Community genetics: what have we accomplished and where should we be going?

Erika I Hersch-Green, Nash E Turley, Marc T J Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Competition-cooperation mechanism betweenFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Erika I Hersch-GreenDepartment of Plant Biology, North Carolina State University, PO Box 7612, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA. erikahersch@gmail.com
Nash E Turley
Marc T J Johnson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research in community genetics seeks to understand how the dynamic interplay between ecology and evolution shapes simple and complex communities and ecosystems. A community genetics perspective, however, may not be necessary or informative for all studies and systems. To better understand when and how intraspecific genetic variation and microevolution are important in community and ecosystem ecology, we suggest future research should focus on three areas: (i) determining the relative importance of intraspecific genetic variation compared with other ecological factors in mediating community and ecosystem properties; (ii) understanding the importance of microevolution in shaping ecological dynamics in multi-trophic communities; and (iii) deciphering the phenotypic and associated genetic mechanisms that drive community and ecosystem processes. Here, we identify key areas of research that will increase our understanding of the ecology and evolution of complex communities but that are currently missing in community genetics. We then suggest experiments designed to meet these current gaps.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEcosystemGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationPopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID21444318
PMCPMC3081577

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.