Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33217783›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of botany2020

Small herbaria contribute unique biogeographic records to county, locality, and temporal scales.

Travis D Marsico, Erica R Krimmel, J Richard Carter, Emily L Gillespie, Phillip D Lowe, Ross McCauley, Ashley B Morris, Gil Nelson, Michelle Smith, Diana L Soteropoulos and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors.

Travis D MarsicoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, PO Box 599, AR, 72467, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8422-8314
Erica R KrimmelSagehen Creek Field Station, University of California Berkeley, 11616 Sagehen Road, Truckee, CA, 96160, USA.
J Richard CarterDepartment of Biology, Valdosta State University, 1500 North Patterson Street, Valdosta, GA, 31698, USA.
Emily L GillespieDepartment of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, One John Marshall Drive, Huntington, WV, 25755, USA.
Phillip D LoweDepartment of Biology, Valdosta State University, 1500 North Patterson Street, Valdosta, GA, 31698, USA.
Ross McCauleyDepartment of Biology, Fort Lewis College, 1000 Rim Drive, Durango, CO, 81301, USA.
Ashley B MorrisDepartment of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Box 60, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA.
Gil NelsonDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, 142 Collegiate Loop, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA.
Michelle SmithDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, 142 Collegiate Loop, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA.
Diana L SoteropoulosDepartment of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, PO Box 599, AR, 72467, USA.
Anna K MonfilsDepartment of Biology, Central Michigan University, 2401 Biosciences, Mount Pleasant, MI, 48859, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premiseWith digitization and data sharing initiatives underway over the last 15 years, an important need has been prioritizing specimens to digitize. Because duplicate specimens are shared among herbaria in exchange and gift programs, we investigated the extent to which unique biogeographic data are held in small herbaria vs. these data being redundant with those held by larger institutions. We evaluated the unique specimen contributions that small herbaria make to biogeographic understanding at county, locality, and temporal scales.

methodsWe sampled herbarium specimens of 40 plant taxa from each of eight states of the United States of America in four broad status categories: extremely rare, very rare, common native, and introduced. We gathered geographic information from specimens held by large (≥100,000 specimens) and small (<100,000 specimens) herbaria. We built generalized linear mixed models to assess which features of the collections may best predict unique contributions of herbaria and used an Akaike information criterion-based information-theoretic approach for our model selection to choose the best model for each scale.

resultsSmall herbaria contributed unique specimens at all scales in proportion with their contribution of specimens to our data set. The best models for all scales were the full models that included the factors of species status and herbarium size when accounting for state as a random variable.

conclusionsWe demonstrated that small herbaria contribute unique information for research. It is clear that unique contributions cannot be predicted based on herbarium size alone. We must prioritize digitization and data sharing from herbaria of all sizes.

Indexed as

Specimen Handlingbiodiversity collectionbiogeographyherbariumIndex Herbariorumnatural history collectionNorth American Network of Small Herbariarare plantSmall Collections Networkspecimenvoucher

Identifiers

PMID33217783
PMCPMC7756855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.