ArticlePeerJ2022
Probability-based preservational variations within the early Cambrian Chengjiang biota (China).
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taxon-specific redox conditions control fossilisation pathways.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Highly resolved taphonomic variations within the Early Ordovician Fezouata Biota.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Cabrières Biota (France) provides insights into Ordovician polar ecosystems.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- The effects of clays on bacterial community composition during arthropod decay.Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2024Article
- Discovery of diversePeerJ · 2024Review
- Variations in preservation of exceptional fossils within concretions.Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2023Article
- New fossil assemblages from the Early Ordovician Fezouata Biota.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Chengjiang biota (Yunnan Province, China) is a treasure trove of soft-bodied animal fossils from the earliest stages of the Cambrian explosion. The mechanisms contributing to its unique preservation, known as the Burgess Shale-type preservation, are well understood. However, little is known about the preservation differences between various animal groups within this biota. This study compares tissue-occurrence data of 11 major animal groups in the Chengjiang biota using a probabilistic methodology. The fossil-based data from this study is compared to previous decay experiments. This shows that all groups are not equally preserved with some higher taxa more likely to preserve soft tissues than others. These differences in fossil preservation between taxa can be explained by the interaction of biological and environmental characteristics. A bias also results from differential taxonomic recognition, as some taxa are easily recognized from even poorly preserved fragments while other specimens are difficult to assign to higher taxa even with exquisite preservation.
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.