ArticleZooKeys2019
Mollusc species from the Pontocaspian region - an expert opinion list.
Article in ZooKeys, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population genetic insights into establishment, adaptation, and dispersal of the invasive quagga mussel across perialpine lakes.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Past, Present and Future of the Aral Sea -A Review of its Fauna and Flora before and during the Regression Crisis.Zoological studies · 2023Article
- A DNA barcode reference library for endemic Ponto-Caspian amphipods.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Decline of unique Pontocaspian biodiversity in the Black Sea Basin: A review.Ecology and evolution · 2021Review
- Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Pleistocene-Holocene aquatic molluscs as indicators of the past ecosystem changes in Transbaikalia (Eastern Siberia, Russia).PloS one · 2020Article
- Old lake versus young taxa: a comparative phylogeographic perspective on the evolution of Caspian Sea gastropods (Neritidae:Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Historical faunal exchange between the Pontocaspian Basin and North America.Ecology and evolution · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defining and recording the loss of species diversity is a daunting task, especially if identities of species under threat are not fully resolved. An example is the Pontocaspian biota. The mostly endemic invertebrate faunas that evolved in the Black Sea - Caspian Sea - Aral Sea region and live under variable salinity conditions are undergoing strong change, yet within several groups species boundaries are not well established. Collection efforts in the past decade have failed to produce living material of various species groups whose taxonomic status is unclear. This lack of data precludes an integrated taxonomic assessment to clarify species identities and estimate species richness of Pontocaspian biota combining morphological, ecological, genetic, and distribution data. In this paper, we present an expert-working list of Pontocaspian and invasive mollusc species associated to Pontocaspian habitats. This list is based on published and unpublished data on morphology, ecology, anatomy, and molecular biology. It allows us to (1) document Pontocaspian mollusc species, (2) make species richness estimates, and (3) identify and discuss taxonomic uncertainties. The endemic Pontocaspian mollusc species richness is estimated between 55 and 99 species, but there are several groups that may harbour cryptic species. Even though the conservation status of most of the species is not assessed or data deficient, our observations point to deterioration for many of the Pontocaspian species.
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.