Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27160993›Full record

ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2016

Location and foraging as basis for classification of biotic interactions.

Viner F Khabibullin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Viner F KhabibullinDepartment of Human Physiology and Zoology, Bashkir State University, Zaki-Validy str., 32, Ufa, Bashkortostan, 450076, Russia. herpetology@mail.ru.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecologists face an overwhelming diversity of ecological relationships in natural communities. In this paper, I propose to differentiate various types of the interspecific relations on the basis of two factors: relative localization and foraging activity of interacting partners. I advocate recognition of four types of environments: internal, surface, proximate external and distant external. Then I distinguish four types of synoikia-one partner lives in different degree of proximity to another; and four types of synmensalism: one partner forages in different degree of proximity to another. Intersection of localization-based (four subtypes of synoikia) and foraging-based (four subtypes of synmensalism) rows results in 16 types of interactions. This scheme can serve as a framework that manages diverse biotic interactions in a standardized way. I have made the first step to set up nomenclature standards for terms describing interspecific interactions and hope that this will facilitate research and communication.

Indexed as

Appetitive BehaviorEcosystemModels, BiologicalSymbiosisAnimalsEcologyEnvironmentFeeding BehaviorSpecies SpecificityInterspecific interactionsSynmensalismSynoikiaTheoretical scheme

Identifiers

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.