Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27296482›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2016

Dimensions of biodiversity in the Earth mycobiome.

Kabir G Peay, Peter G Kennedy, Jennifer M Talbot

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 224 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
224citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

224 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Microbial ecology of shallow groundwater ecosystems.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

164 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.

Kabir G PeayDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Peter G KennedyDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Minnesota.
Jennifer M TalbotDepartment of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungi represent a large proportion of the genetic diversity on Earth and fungal activity influences the structure of plant and animal communities, as well as rates of ecosystem processes. Large-scale DNA-sequencing datasets are beginning to reveal the dimensions of fungal biodiversity, which seem to be fundamentally different to bacteria, plants and animals. In this Review, we describe the patterns of fungal biodiversity that have been revealed by molecular-based studies. Furthermore, we consider the evidence that supports the roles of different candidate drivers of fungal diversity at a range of spatial scales, as well as the role of dispersal limitation in maintaining regional endemism and influencing local community assembly. Finally, we discuss the ecological mechanisms that are likely to be responsible for the high heterogeneity that is observed in fungal communities at local scales.

Indexed as

BiodiversityMicrobial ConsortiaMycobiomeSoil MicrobiologyAnimalsEcosystemFungiHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhylogeographyPlants

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.