ArticleEcology and evolution2018
Benthic biogeographic patterns in the southern Australian deep sea: Do historical museum records accord with recent systematic, but spatially limited, survey data?
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo document biogeographic patterns in the deepwater benthic epifauna and demersal fishes of southern Australia, and determine whether museum records and systematic survey data provide matching results. LOCATION: Southern Australian (32-44 TAXON: Marine benthic fauna (Arthropoda, Bryozoa, Cnidaria, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Porifera, Sipuncula, and fishes).
methodsAll available electronic records of fauna from the above taxa and ≥200 m depth off the southern Australian coastline, regardless of organism size, were collated from Australian museums and checked for geographic and taxonomic consistency. These records were then split into 40 geographic segments of roughly equal numbers, with each segment then treated as a sample in multivariate analyses of assemblage composition. Data from a recent (2015) systematic beam trawl survey along five north-south transects in the central Great Australian Bight were also included for comparison. MAIN
conclusionsThe systematic survey data grouped with the associated geographic segments despite differences in sampling technique (single gear compared to multiple gears), with subsequent differences in taxonomic biases, and the use of a 25 mm mesh, which would undersample some smaller organisms present in the museum data. Thus, the museum data and the survey data provided the same results for the central Great Australian Bight at the level of the whole assemblage. The main biogeographic break occurred off southeastern Tasmania, with a second substantial break occurring at around the border between New South Wales and Victoria. This indicates the potential for unused museum data to describe biogeographic patterns over regional spatial scales, especially in the deep sea where the expense of collecting new data is relatively high.
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.