ArticleScientific reports2020
Fungal attack on archaeological wooden artefacts in the Arctic-implications in a changing climate.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mucor thermorhizoides-A New Species from Post-mining Site in Sudety Mountains (Poland).Current microbiology · 2024Article
- Once upon a Time, There Was a Piece of Wood: Present Knowledge and Future Perspectives in Fungal Deterioration of Wooden Cultural Heritage in Terrestrial Ecosystems and Diagnostic Tools.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Characterization of Culturable Mycobiome of Newly Excavated Ancient Wooden Vessels from the Archeological Site of Viminacium, Serbia.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessing the consequences of recent climate change on World Heritage sites in South Greenland.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Application of Inorganic Nanomaterials in Cultural Heritage Conservation, Risk of Toxicity, and Preventive Measures.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Apothecial Ancestry, Evolution, and Re-Evolution inBiology · 2022Article
- Resistance and Care in the Time of COVID-19: Archaeology in 2020.American anthropologist · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change is expected to accelerate the microbial degradation of the many extraordinary well-preserved organic archaeological deposits found in the Arctic. This could potentially lead to a major loss of wooden artefacts that are still buried within the region. Here, we carry out the first large-scale investigation of wood degradation within archaeological deposits in the Arctic. This is done based on wooden samples from 11 archaeological sites that are located along a climatic gradient in Western Greenland. Our results show that Ascomycota fungi are causing extensive soft rot decay at all sites regardless of climate and local environment, but the group is diverse and many of the species were only found once. Cadophora species known to cause soft rot in polar environments were the most abundant Ascomycota found and their occurrence in native wood samples underlines that they are present locally. Basidiomycota fungi were also present at all sites. In the majority of samples, however, these aggressive and potentially very damaging wood degraders have caused limited decay so far, probably due to unfavorable growth conditions. The presence of these wood degrading fungi suggests that archaeological wooden artefacts may become further endangered if climate change leads to more favorable growth conditions.
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.