Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34285838›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

A review of coral bleaching specimen collection, preservation, and laboratory processing methods.

Rowan H McLachlan, Kerri L Dobson, Emily R Schmeltzer, Rebecca Vega Thurber, Andréa G Grottoli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Rowan H McLachlanSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America.
Kerri L DobsonSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America.
Emily R SchmeltzerDepartment of Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.
Rebecca Vega ThurberDepartment of Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.
Andréa G GrottoliSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Under current climate warming predictions, the future of coral reefs is dire. With projected coral reef decline, it is likely that coral specimens for bleaching research will increasingly become a more limited resource in the future. By adopting a holistic approach through increased collaborations, coral bleaching scientists can maximize a specimen's investigative yield, thus reducing the need to remove more coral material from the reef. Yet to expand a specimen's utility for additional analytic methods, information on how corals are collected is essential as many methods are variably sensitive to upstream handling and processing. In an effort to identify common practices for coral collection, sacrifice, preservation, and processing in coral bleaching research, we surveyed the literature from the last 6.5 years and created and analyzed the resulting dataset of 171 publications. Since January 2014, at least 21,890 coral specimens were collected for bleaching surveys or bleaching experiments. These specimens spanned 122 species of scleractinian corals where the most frequently sampled were

Indexed as

BleachingCoralExperimentsHandlingMethodsPretreatmentSamplesSamplingSpecimensSurveys

Identifiers

PMID34285838
PMCPMC8272927

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.