ArticlePeerJ2017
Counting complete? Finalising the plant inventory of a global biodiversity hotspot.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The diversity of ignorance and the ignorance of diversity: origins and implications of "shadow diversity" for conservation biology and extinction.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2024Review
- Who will name new plant species? Temporal change in the origins of taxonomists in China.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Implications for conservation assessment from flux in the botanical record over 20 years in southwest Ghana.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Article
- Endemic diversity and distribution of the Iranian vascular flora across phytogeographical regions, biodiversity hotspots and areas of endemism.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cape Floristic Region-the world's smallest and third richest botanical hotspot-has benefited from sustained levels of taxonomic effort and exploration for almost three centuries, but how close is this to resulting in a near-complete plant species inventory? We analyse a core component of this flora over a 250-year period for trends in taxonomic effort and species discovery linked to ecological and conservation attributes. We show that >40% of the current total of species was described within the first 100 years of exploration, followed by a continued steady rate of description. We propose that <1% of the flora is still to be described. We document a relatively constant cohort of taxonomists, working over 250 years at what we interpret to be their 'taxonomic maximum.' Rates of description of new species were independent of plant growth-form but narrow-range taxa have constituted a significantly greater proportion of species discoveries since 1950. This suggests that the fraction of undiscovered species predominantly comprises localised endemics that are thus of high conservation concern. Our analysis provides important real-world insights for other hotspots in the context of global strategic plans for biodiversity in informing considerations of the likely effort required in attaining set targets of comprehensive plant inventories. In a time of unprecedented biodiversity loss, we argue for a focused research agenda across disciplines to increase the rate of species descriptions in global biodiversity hotspots.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.