Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30455216›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018

The use and misuse of herbarium specimens in evaluating plant extinction risks.

Eimear Nic Lughadha, Barnaby E Walker, Cátia Canteiro, Helen Chadburn, Aaron P Davis, Serene Hargreaves, Eve J Lucas, André Schuiteman, Emma Williams, Steven P Bachman and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Evidence-based guidelines for automated conservation assessments of plant species.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Systematics of thePhytoKeys · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Biological collections for understanding biodiversity in the Anthropocene.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018
    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

17 authors.

Eimear Nic LughadhaRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK e.niclughadha@kew.org.ORCID 0000-0002-8806-4345
Barnaby E WalkerRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3884-671X
Cátia CanteiroRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6588-4773
Helen ChadburnRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0973-6375
Aaron P DavisRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9213-4353
Serene HargreavesRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7058-9901
Eve J LucasRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
André SchuitemanRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
Emma WilliamsRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9847-2035
Steven P BachmanRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1085-6075
David BainesRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
Amy BarkerRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
Andrew P BuddenRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6207-3737
Julia CarreteroRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
James J ClarksonRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
Alexandra RobertsRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK.
Malin C RiversBotanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond TW9 3BW, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9690-1353

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herbarium specimens provide verifiable and citable evidence of the occurrence of particular plants at particular points in space and time, and are vital resources for assessing extinction risk in the tropics, where plant diversity and threats to plants are greatest. We reviewed approaches to assessing extinction risk in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity's Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Target 2: an assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species by 2020. We tested five alternative approaches, using herbarium-derived data for trees, shrubs and herbs in five different plant groups from temperate and tropical regions. All species were previously fully assessed for the IUCN Red List. We found significant variation in the accuracy with which different approaches classified species as threatened or not threatened. Accuracy was highest for the machine learning model (90%) but the least data-intensive approach also performed well (82%). Despite concerns about spatial, temporal and taxonomic biases and uncertainties in herbarium data, when specimens represent the best available evidence for particular species, their use as a basis for extinction risk assessment is appropriate, necessary and urgent. Resourcing herbaria to maintain, increase and disseminate their specimen data is essential to guide and focus conservation action.This article is part of the theme issue 'Biological collections for understanding biodiversity in the Anthropocene'.

Indexed as

Extinction, BiologicalPlantsSpecimen HandlingConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesMuseumsRisk Assessmentconservation assessmentdigitizationextent of occurrenceIUCN Red Listmachine learningnatural history collections

Identifiers

PMID30455216
PMCPMC6282085

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.