Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24160433›Full record

ReviewAnnual review of entomology2014

Freshwater biodiversity and aquatic insect diversification.

Klaas-Douwe B Dijkstra, Michael T Monaghan, Steffen U Pauls

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annual review of entomology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing 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

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Klaas-Douwe B DijkstraNaturalis Biodiversity Center, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands; email: kd.dijkstra@naturalis.nl.
Michael T Monaghan
Steffen U Pauls

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 23687
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inland waters cover less than 1% of Earth's surface but harbor more than 6% of all insect species: Nearly 100,000 species from 12 orders spend one or more life stages in freshwater. Little is known about how this remarkable diversity arose, although allopatric speciation and ecological adaptation are thought to be primary mechanisms. Freshwater habitats are highly susceptible to environmental change and exhibit marked ecological gradients. Standing waters appear to harbor more dispersive species than running waters, but there is little understanding of how this fundamental ecological difference has affected diversification. In contrast to the lack of evolutionary studies, the ecology and habitat preferences of aquatic insects have been intensively studied, in part because of their widespread use as bioindicators. The combination of phylogenetics with the extensive ecological data provides a promising avenue for future research, making aquatic insects highly suitable models for the study of ecological diversification.

Indexed as

BiodiversityFresh WaterAnimalsBiological EvolutionEcosystemInsectaPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID24160433
PMCPMC4816856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.