Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396659›Full record

ArticleScientific data2022

An expert curated global legume checklist improves the accuracy of occurrence, biodiversity and taxonomic data.

M Marianne le Roux, Joseph T Miller, John Waller, Markus Döring, Anne Bruneau

Abstract readDataset
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Convergent evolution ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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.

M Marianne le RouxFoundational Biodiversity Sciences Division, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa. m.leroux@sanbi.org.za.ORCID 0000-0003-4705-2513
Joseph T MillerGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen, Denmark.
John WallerGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Markus DöringGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7757-1889
Anne BruneauInstitut de Recherche en Biologie Végétale & Département de Sciences Biologiques, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5547-0796

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Legume Phylogeny Working Group's Taxonomy Working Group was tasked to create a community endorsed global legume checklist that will serve as a primary source of taxa for biodiversity data platforms and legume-related research. The checklist was published in June 2021, recognising 772 genera and 22,360 species. It is disseminated through the new Legume Data Portal as part of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) hosted portal initiative. The process that was followed to publish and disseminate the checklist and its content is described here. The impact of the work by the Taxonomy Working Group are quantified by comparing the published checklist with the GBIF taxonomic backbone. A total of 44,157 names overlapped with the GBIF taxonomic backbone while 30,456 names were added, which enabled more accurate name matching of 61,235 legume occurrences. Continuous improvement to the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP): Fabaceae checklist will allow the GBIF taxonomic backbone and other checklist managers to converge to a consistent and comprehensive list of legume taxa globally over time.

Indexed as

FabaceaeBiodiversityChecklistPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID36396659
PMCPMC9672059

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.