Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25487333›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Proxy comparison in ancient peat sediments: pollen, macrofossil and plant DNA.

Laura Parducci, Minna Väliranta, J Sakari Salonen, Tiina Ronkainen, Irina Matetovici, Sonia L Fontana, Tiina Eskola, Pertti Sarala, Yoshihisa Suyama

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Using ancient sedimentary DNA to forecast ecosystem trajectories under climate change.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Introduction. Ancient DNA: the first three decades.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    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

9 authors.

Laura ParducciDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, ØsterVoldgade 5-7, 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark laura.parducci@ebc.uu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1956-4757
Minna VälirantaDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
J Sakari SalonenDepartment of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, PO Box 64, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Tiina RonkainenDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland.
Irina MatetoviciMolecular Biology Centre, Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Bio-Nano-Sciences, Babes-Bolyai-University ClujNapoca, 42 TreboniuLaurian Street, 400271 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Sonia L FontanaSchool of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK.
Tiina EskolaDepartment of Geosciences, University of Oulu, PO Box 3000, 90014 Oulu, Finland.
Pertti SaralaGeological Survey of Finland, PO Box 77, 96101 Rovaniemi, Finland.
Yoshihisa SuyamaGraduate School of Agricultural Science, Tohoku University, 232-3 Yomogida, Naruko-onsen, Osaki, Miyagi 989-6711, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared DNA, pollen and macrofossil data obtained from Weichselian interstadial (age more than 40 kyr) and Holocene (maximum age 8400 cal yr BP) peat sediments from northern Europe and used them to reconstruct contemporary floristic compositions at two sites. The majority of the samples provided plant DNA sequences of good quality with success amplification rates depending on age. DNA and sequencing analysis provided five plant taxa from the older site and nine taxa from the younger site, corresponding to 7% and 15% of the total number of taxa identified by the three proxies together. At both sites, pollen analysis detected the largest (54) and DNA the lowest (10) number of taxa, but five of the DNA taxa were not detected by pollen and macrofossils. The finding of a larger overlap between DNA and pollen than between DNA and macrofossils proxies seems to go against our previous suggestion based on lacustrine sediments that DNA originates principally from plant tissues and less from pollen. At both sites, we also detected Quercus spp. DNA, but few pollen grains were found in the record, and these are normally interpreted as long-distance dispersal. We confirm that in palaeoecological investigations, sedimentary DNA analysis is less comprehensive than classical morphological analysis, but is a complementary and important tool to obtain a more complete picture of past flora.

Indexed as

FossilsBase SequenceDNA, PlantFinlandGeologic SedimentsHistory, AncientMolecular Sequence DataMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionPollenRussiaSequence Analysis, DNASoilDNA, PlantSoilancient DNAbarcodingHoloceneplant macrofossilspollenWeichselian interstadial

Identifiers

PMID25487333
PMCPMC4275889

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.