Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28102290›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Wells provide a distorted view of life in the aquifer: implications for sampling, monitoring and assessment of groundwater ecosystems.

Kathryn Korbel, Anthony Chariton, Sarah Stephenson, Paul Greenfield, Grant C Hose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Towards evidence-based conservation of subterranean ecosystems.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

5 authors.

Kathryn KorbelDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2109, Australia.
Anthony CharitonCSIRO, Oceans and Atmosphere Division, Australia.
Sarah StephensonCSIRO, Oceans and Atmosphere Division, Australia.
Paul GreenfieldCSIRO, Oceans and Atmosphere Division, Australia.
Grant C HoseDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2109, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When compared to surface ecosystems, groundwater sampling has unique constraints, including limited access to ecosystems through wells. In order to monitor groundwater, a detailed understanding of groundwater biota and what biological sampling of wells truly reflects, is paramount. This study aims to address this uncertainty, comparing the composition of biota in groundwater wells prior to and after purging, with samples collected prior to purging reflecting a potentially artificial environment and samples collected after purging representing the surrounding aquifer. This study uses DNA community profiling (metabarcoding) of 16S rDNA and 18S rDNA, combined with traditional stygofauna sampling methods, to characterise groundwater biota from four catchments within eastern Australia. Aquifer waters were dominated by Archaea and bacteria (e.g. Nitrosopumilales) that are often associated with nitrification processes, and contained a greater proportion of bacteria (e.g. Anaerolineales) associated with fermenting processes compared to well waters. In contrast, unpurged wells contained greater proportions of pathogenic bacteria and bacteria often associated with denitrification processes. In terms of eukaryotes, the abundances of copepods, syncarids and oligochaetes and total abundances of stygofauna were greater in wells than aquifers. These findings highlight the need to consider sampling requirements when completing groundwater ecology surveys.

Identifiers

PMID28102290
PMCPMC5244371

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.