Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26105126›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2016

Virus ecology of fluvial systems: a blank spot on the map?

Peter Peduzzi

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Viruses direct carbon cycling in lake sediments under global change.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Virio- and Bacterioplankton of the Coastal Water of the Moscow River.Doklady biological sciences : proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Biological sciences sections · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Picorna-Like Viruses of the Havel River, Germany.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter PeduzziDepartment of Limnology & Bio-Oceanography, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. peter.peduzzi@univie.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5382-2807
University of Vienna · AT

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 17798Austrian Science Fund FWF P 24604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ecology of viruses has been studied only in a limited number of rivers and streams. In light of a recent re-appraisal of the global fluvial surface area, issues such as abundance and production, host mortality and the influence of suspended particles and biofilms are addressed. Viral life cycles, potential impacts of viruses on water biochemistry and carbon flow, and viral diversity are considered. Variability in trophic levels along with the heterogeneous nature and hydrological dynamics of fluvial environments suggest a prevailingly physical control of virus-related processes under lotic conditions and more biological control under lentic conditions. Viral lysis likely contributes to a pool of rapidly cycling carbon in environments typically characterized by high proportions of recalcitrant terrestrial carbon. On average, 33.6% (equalling 0.605 Pg C year

Indexed as

EcosystemClimate ChangeRiversVirus Physiological Phenomenabacterial-viral loopbacteriophageC-fluxorganic matterriverstream

Identifiers

PMID26105126
PMCPMC5055098
OpenAlexW1499328459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.