Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29483273›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Population trends in

Gunnar R Kramer, David E Andersen, David A Buehler, Petra B Wood, Sean M Peterson, Justin A Lehman, Kyle R Aldinger, Lesley P Bulluck, Sergio Harding, John A Jones and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Gunnar R KramerDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606; gunnarrkramer@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7347-8641
David E AndersenUS Geological Survey, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.
David A BuehlerDepartment of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
Petra B WoodUS Geological Survey, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506.
Sean M PetersonDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Justin A LehmanDepartment of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996.
Kyle R AldingerWest Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506.
Lesley P BulluckDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284.
Sergio HardingVirginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Henrico, VA 23228.
John A JonesDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118.
John P LoegeringAgriculture and Natural Resources Department, University of Minnesota, Crookston, MN 56716.
Curtis SmallingAudubon North Carolina, Boone, NC 28607.
Rachel VallenderCanadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, QC, K1A OH3 Canada.
Henry M StrebyDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Migratory species can experience limiting factors at different locations and during different periods of their annual cycle. In migratory birds, these factors may even occur in different hemispheres. Therefore, identifying the distribution of populations throughout their annual cycle (i.e., migratory connectivity) can reveal the complex ecological and evolutionary relationships that link species and ecosystems across the globe and illuminate where and how limiting factors influence population trends. A growing body of literature continues to identify species that exhibit weak connectivity wherein individuals from distinct breeding areas co-occur during the nonbreeding period. A detailed account of a broadly distributed species exhibiting strong migratory connectivity in which nonbreeding isolation of populations is associated with differential population trends remains undescribed. Here, we present a range-wide assessment of the nonbreeding distribution and migratory connectivity of two broadly dispersed Nearctic-Neotropical migratory songbirds. We used geolocators to track the movements of 70

Indexed as

Animal DistributionAnimal MigrationBreedingPopulation DynamicsAnimalsEcosystemMaleSeasonsSongbirdsanimal trackingconservationgeolocatorlimiting factormigration

Identifiers

PMID29483273
PMCPMC5889647

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.