Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39876735›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2025

Population variability across geographical ranges: perspectives and challenges.

Cleber Ten Caten, Tad Dallas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Cleber Ten CatenDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3788-3508
Tad DallasDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

Funding

National Science Foundation NSF-DEB-2017826National Science Foundation NSF-DEB-2420769
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Populations fluctuate over time and across geographical space, and understanding how different factors contribute to population variability is a central goal in population ecology. There is a particular interest in identifying trends of population variability within geographical ranges as population densities of species can fluctuate substantially across geographical space. A common assumption is that populations vary more near species geographical range edges because of unsuitable environments and higher vulnerability to environmental variability in these areas. However, empirical data rarely support this expectation, suggesting that population variability is not related to its position within species geographical ranges. We propose that performance curves, which describe the relationship between population growth rates and environmental conditions, can be used to disentangle geographical patterns of population variability. Performance curves are important for understanding population variability because populations fluctuate more in locations where they have lower growth rates owing to unsuitable environmental conditions. This is important for the assessment of these geographical patterns in population variability because geographical edges often do not reflect environmental edges. Considering species performance curves when evaluating geographical patterns of population variability would also allow researchers to detect populations that are more susceptible to future changes in environmental conditions.

Indexed as

Biological Variation, PopulationAnimalsEcosystemGeographyPopulation DensityPopulation Dynamicsgeographical patternsgeographical rangeperformance curvepopulation variabilityrange position

Identifiers

PMID39876735
PMCPMC11775592

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.