ArticleEcology and evolution2023
Exploring the impact of data curation criteria on the observed geographical distribution of mosses.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distribution patterns ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Cones and consequences: the false dichotomy of conifers vs broad-leaves has critical implications for research and modelling.The New phytologist · 2025Review
- Mobilisation of Data From Natural History Collections Can Increase the Quality and Coverage of Biodiversity Information.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Exploring the impact of data curation criteria on the observed geographical distribution of mosses.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biodiversity data records contain inaccuracies and biases. To overcome this limitation and establish robust geographic patterns, ecologists often curate records keeping those that are most suitable for their analyses. Yet, this choice is not straightforward and the outcome of the analysis may vary due to a trade-off between data quality and volume. This problem is particularly recurrent for less-studied groups with patchy sampling effort. The latitudinal pattern of mosses richness remains inconsistent across studies and these may emerge purely from sampling artefacts. Our main objective here is to assess the effect of different curation criteria on this spatial pattern in the Temperate Northern Hemisphere (above 20° latitude). We contrasted the geographical distribution of moss species records and the latitude-species richness relation obtained under different data curation scenarios. These scenarios comprehend five sources of taxonomical standardisations and eight data cleaning filters. The analyses are based on the selection of well-surveyed cells at 100 km cell resolution. The application of some 'data curation scenarios' severely affects the number of records selected for analysis and substantially changes the proportion of richness per cell. The sensitivity to data curation becomes detectable at regional and at the cell scales showing a large shift in the latitudinal richness peak in Europe, from 60° N to 45° N latitude, when only preserved specimens are selected and duplicates based on date of collection and coordinates are excluded. Our results stress the importance of justifying the criteria used for filtering biodiversity data retrieved from biodiversity databases to avoid detecting misleading patterns. Curating records under particular criteria compromises the information in some areas displaying different spatial information of mosses. This problem can be ameliorated if data filtering is combined with identifying well-surveyed cells, render relatively constant results under different combinations of filtering even for less well-known groups such as mosses.
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.