ArticlePLoS biology2021
Vast (but avoidable) underestimation of global biodiversity.
Article in PLoS biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- StrataSeq: A Workflow for Rapid Development of Molecular Databases for Hard-To-Identify Species.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Catalytic Enantioselective C-C Coupling of Alcohols for Polyketide Total Synthesis beyond Chiral Auxiliaries and Premetalated Reagents.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
- Enumerating soil biodiversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Review
- Macroevolutionary constraints on global microbial diversity.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Article
- Taxonomic classification of DNA sequences beyond sequence similarity using deep neural networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Addressing biodiversity loss by building a shared future.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Review
- Addressing the sublime scale of the microbial world: reconciling an appreciation of microbial diversity with the need to describe species.New microbes and new infections · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of species on Earth is highly uncertain. A recent study has suggested that there are less than 2 million prokaryotic species on Earth; this Formal Comment suggests instead that there are more likely hundreds of millions or billions of species, and that the majority of these are bacteria associated with insects and other animals.
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.