Reviewnpj biodiversity2024
Towards (better) fluvial meta-ecosystem ecology: a research perspective.
Review in npj biodiversity, 2024. 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.
- Drying Halves Decomposition Rates in River Networks by Decreasing Decomposer Diversity.Global change biology · 2026Article
- Integrating Metaecosystem Framework with Ecosystem Service Dynamics in Sociohydrosystems.Bioscience · 2026Review
- Peritrichs (Ciliophora, Peritrichia) in the Danube: Keystone Organisms in the Formation of Diverse Protist Biofilms.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025Article
- Baselining Urban Ecosystems from Sentinel Species: Fitness, Flows, and Sinks.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Rivers are an important component of the global carbon cycle and contribute to atmospheric carbon exchange disproportionately to their total surface area. Largely, this is because rivers efficiently mobilize, transport and metabolize terrigenous organic matter (OM). Notably, our knowledge about the magnitude of globally relevant carbon fluxes strongly contrasts with our lack of understanding of the underlying processes that transform OM. Ultimately, OM processing en route to the oceans results from a diverse assemblage of consumers interacting with an equally diverse pool of resources in a spatially complex network of heterogeneous riverine habitats. To understand this interaction between consumers and OM, we must therefore account for spatial configuration, connectivity, and landscape context at scales ranging from local ecosystems to entire networks. Building such a spatially explicit framework of fluvial OM processing across scales may also help us to better predict poorly understood anthropogenic impacts on fluvial carbon cycling, for instance human-induced fragmentation and changes to flow regimes, including intermittence. Moreover, this framework must also account for the current unprecedented human-driven loss of biodiversity. This loss is at least partly due to mechanisms operating across spatial scales, such as interference with migration and habitat homogenization, and comes with largely unknown functional consequences. We advocate here for a comprehensive framework for fluvial networks connecting two spatially aware but disparate lines of research on (i) riverine metacommunities and biodiversity, and (ii) the biogeochemistry of rivers and their contribution to the global carbon cycle. We argue for a research agenda focusing on the regional scale-that is, of the entire river network-to enable a deeper mechanistic understanding of naturally arising biodiversity-ecosystem functioning coupling as a major driver of biogeochemically relevant riverine carbon fluxes.
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.