Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31537959›Full record

ArticleZooKeys2019

Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for inland fishes of Texas.

Cody Andrew Craig, Timothy Hallman Bonner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ZooKeys, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Cody Andrew CraigDepartment of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Texas State University San Marcos United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9046-0972
Timothy Hallman BonnerDepartment of Biology/Aquatic Station, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666, USA Texas State University San Marcos United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species checklists and dichotomous keys are valuable tools that provide many services for ecological studies and management through tracking native and non-native species through time. We developed nine drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys for 196 inland fishes of Texas, consisting of 171 native fishes and 25 non-native fishes. Our checklists were updated from previous checklists and revised using reports of new established native and non-native fishes in Texas, reports of new fish occurrences among drainages, and changes in species taxonomic nomenclature. We provided the first dichotomous keys for major drainage basins in Texas. Among the 171 native inland fishes, 6 species are considered extinct or extirpated, 13 species are listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 59 species are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) by the state of Texas. Red River drainage basin was the most speciose with 120 fishes. Rio Grande & Pecos drainage basin had the greatest number of threatened or endangered fishes (N = 7) and the greatest number of SGCN fishes (N = 28). We revised drainage basin occurrences for 77 species. Drainage basin checklists and dichotomous keys provide finer resolution of species distributions within the geopolitical boundaries of Texas and can reduce probability of errors in fish identification errors by removing species not occurring within a natural boundary.

Indexed as

checklistdichotomous keydrainagefishidentificationkeyoccurrenceTexas

Identifiers

PMID31537959
PMCPMC6733811

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.