ArticleZooKeys2019
Checklist of the ichthyofauna of the Rio Negro basin in the Brazilian Amazon.
Article in ZooKeys, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amazonian drought of 2023: Environmental conditions relevant to fishes.Journal of fish biology · 2026Article
- Ion uptake in naturally acidic water.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2024Review
- Article
- Time-calibrated phylogeny of neotropical freshwater fishes.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Important role of endogenous microbial symbionts of fish gills in the challenging but highly biodiverse Amazonian blackwaters.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Ichthyological ethnoknowledge of the "piabeiros" from the Amazon region, Brazil.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents an extensive review of published and unpublished occurrence records of fish species in the Rio Negro drainage system within the Brazilian territory. The data was gathered from two main sources: 1) litterature compilations of species occurrence records, including original descriptions and revisionary studies; and 2) specimens verification at the INPA fish collection. The results reveal a rich and diversified ichthyofauna, with 1,165 species distributed in 17 orders (+ two incertae sedis), 56 families, and 389 genera. A large portion of the fish fauna (54.3% of the species) is composed of small-sized fishes < 10 cm in standard length. The main groups are Characiformes (454 species; 39.0%), Siluriformes (416; 35.7%), Gymnotiformes (105; 9.0%), and Cichliformes (102; 8.8%). The species composition differs between the main aquatic environments, such as: main channel (159 species), lakes (296), tributary rivers (596), small streams (234), seasonal beaches (186), and rapids (41). Part of the ichthyofauna is shared with adjacent basins, such as the Orinoco, rivers of the Guiana Shield, lower Solimões/Amazonas and upper Amazonas, which contributes to the remarkable ichthyofaunal diversity of the basin. A high rate of species endemism was observed in Characidae (24), Loricariidae (18), Cichlidae (18) and Callichthyidae (18), totalling 156 species (13.4%) endemic to the basin. An estimation of the species richness for the Rio Negro basin, considering 23 published references, resulted in 1,466 and 1,759 species (Jackknife 1 and 2, respectively), which seems reasonable when considering the large number of morphotypes left out of the present list and the low sampling effort in many areas of the basin. The results presented herein provide an additional tool for environmental managers and decision makers for conservation purposes of one of the richest and most well-preserved sub-basins of the Rio Amazonas system.
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.