Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29657798›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2018

The importance of sampling standardization for comparisons of insect herbivory in deep time: a case study from the late Palaeozoic.

Sandra R Schachat, Conrad C Labandeira, S Augusta Maccracken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fossil leaves reveal drivers of herbivore functional diversity during the Cenozoic.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Sandra R SchachatDepartment of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3237-5619
Conrad C LabandeiraDepartment of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA.
S Augusta MaccrackenDepartment of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3360-8824

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sampling standardization has not been fully addressed for the study of insect herbivory in the fossil record. The effects of sampling within a single locality were explored almost a decade ago, but the importance of sampling standardization for comparisons of herbivory across space and time has not yet been evaluated. Here, we present a case study from the Permian in which we evaluate the impact of sampling standardization on comparisons of insect herbivory from two localities that are similar in age and floral composition. Comparisons of insect damage type (DT) diversity change dramatically when the number of leaves examined is standardized by surface area. This finding suggests that surface area should always be taken into account for comparisons of DT diversity. In addition, the three most common metrics of herbivory-DT diversity, proportion of leaves herbivorized and proportion of leaf surface area herbivorized-are inherently decoupled from each other. The decoupling of the diversity and intensity of insect herbivory necessitates a reinterpretation of published data because they had been conflated in previous studies. Future studies should examine the divergent ecological factors that underlie these metrics. We conclude with suggestions to guide the sampling and analysis of herbivorized leaves in the fossil record.

Indexed as

ecologyfolivorygymnospermPermianplant–insect interactionsrarefaction

Identifiers

PMID29657798
PMCPMC5882722

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.