ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022
Sampling biases obscure the early diversification of the largest living vertebrate group.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- How do the principal megabiases in the fossil record affect the discovery of past bryophyte diversity?Annals of botany · 2026Article
- Global environmental drivers shape Cenozoic neoselachian diversity and identify modern conservation priorities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- The skeletal completeness of the Palaeozoic chondrichthyan fossil record.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Fitting fangs in a finite face: A novel fang accommodation strategy in a 280-million-year-old ray-finned fish.Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- Sampling biases obscure the early diversification of the largest living vertebrate group.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extant ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) dominate marine and freshwater environments, yet spatio-temporal diversity dynamics following their origin in the Palaeozoic are poorly understood. Previous studies investigate face-value patterns of richness, with only qualitative assessment of biases acting on the Palaeozoic actinopterygian fossil record. Here, we investigate palaeogeographic trends, reconstruct local richness and apply richness estimation techniques to a recently assembled occurrence database for Palaeozoic ray-finned fishes. We identify substantial fossil record biases, such as geographical bias in sampling centred around Europe and North America. Similarly, estimates of diversity are skewed by extreme unevenness in the occurrence distributions, reflecting historical biases in sampling and taxonomic practices, to the extent that evenness has an overriding effect on diversity estimates. Other than a genuine rise in diversity in the Tournaisian following the end-Devonian mass extinction, diversity estimates for Palaeozoic actinopterygians appear to lack biological signal, are heavily biased and are highly dependent on sampling. Increased sampling of poorly represented regions and expanding sampling beyond the literature to include museum collection data will be critical in obtaining accurate estimates of Palaeozoic actinopterygian diversity. In conjunction, applying diversity estimation techniques to well-sampled regional subsets of the 'global' dataset may identify accurate local diversity trends.
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.