Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27385771›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2016

Orchid conservation: further links.

Michael F Fay

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Diversity of unique, nonmycorrhizal endophytic fungi in cultivatedPlant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Symbiotic and Asymbiotic Germination ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael F FayRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS, UK and School of Plant Biology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia m.fay@kew.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue in great part to their often complex interactions with mycorrhizal fungi, pollinators and host trees, Orchidaceae present particular challenges for conservation. Furthermore, orchids, as potentially the largest family of angiosperms with >26000 species, species complexes and frequent hybrid formation, are complex to catalogue. Following a highlight in 2015, a further seven papers focusing on orchids, their interactions with beneficial organisms, pollinators and mycorrhiza, and other factors relating to their conservation, including threats from human utilization and changing land use, are presented here.

conclusionsThe production of an online flora of all known plants and an assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species as far as possible, to guide conservation action are the first two targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Without knowing how many species there are and how they should be circumscribed, neither of these targets is achievable. Orchids are a fascinating subject for fundamental research with rapid species evolution, specific organ structure and development, but they also suffer from high levels of threat. Effective orchid conservation must take account of the beneficial interactions with fungi and pollinators and the potentially detrimental effects of over-collection and changes in land use.

Indexed as

MycorrhizaeOrchidaceaeTreesConservation biologyfungimycorrhizasOrchidaceaeorchidspollination ecologytaxonomy

Identifiers

PMID27385771
PMCPMC4934403

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.