Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26108852›Full record

ReviewNature2015

The changing form of Antarctic biodiversity.

Steven L Chown, Andrew Clarke, Ceridwen I Fraser, S Craig Cary, Katherine L Moon, Melodie A McGeoch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

89 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mycology · 2025
    Article
  10. Current research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 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

6 authors.

Steven L ChownSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Andrew ClarkeBritish Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK.
Ceridwen I FraserFenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
S Craig CaryInternational Centre for Terrestrial Antarctic Research, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.
Katherine L Moon1] School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia [2] Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
Melodie A McGeochSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antarctic biodiversity is much more extensive, ecologically diverse and biogeographically structured than previously thought. Understanding of how this diversity is distributed in marine and terrestrial systems, the mechanisms underlying its spatial variation, and the significance of the microbiota is growing rapidly. Broadly recognizable drivers of diversity variation include energy availability and historical refugia. The impacts of local human activities and global environmental change nonetheless pose challenges to the current and future understanding of Antarctic biodiversity. Life in the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean is surprisingly rich, and as much at risk from environmental change as it is elsewhere.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcologyAnimalsAntarctic RegionsAquatic OrganismsConservation of Natural ResourcesHuman ActivitiesMicrobiotaOceans and Seas

Identifiers

PMID26108852

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.