ReviewEcology and evolution2025
Towards Greater Standardisation in Benthic Trait Research to Support Application to Environmental Management.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Functional trait-based approaches have enriched our understanding of key ecological processes such as species assembly and biodiversity loss. This focus on traits, rather than taxonomy, promotes comparability across spatial and organisational scales, further enabling the application of trait-based methodologies to systems where species identity is difficult to recognise. Among other issues, however, the lack of standardisation is preventing trait-based approaches from unlocking their true potential. Here, 407 published articles (peer-reviewed and grey literature) are reviewed alongside the Biological Traits Information Catalogue (BIOTIC) to document inconsistencies in the understanding and use of trait terminology in the context of marine benthic ecosystems. Firstly, discrepancies in the operationalisation of key concepts are noted, each associated with six to ten separate definitions. Secondly, three distinct trait classification frameworks are identified, of which one presents considerable internal variation; within-framework trait classification also emerges as inconsistent. Lastly, a total of 290 synonyms and associated modalities are noted with respect to 18 traits commonly implemented in benthic research, amounting to an average of 16 synonyms per trait. Researchers should be aware of such inconsistencies; to overcome them, we propose a set of guidelines aimed at standardising the reporting and classification of traits in benthic research for policy and management applications. As other standards may exist, we further present a 'translation' table intended for use by trait ecologists when reviewing existing literature that adheres to different trait classification frameworks than the ones we recommend. Standardising the reporting and storage of trait data will help align our understanding of the function of benthic assemblages, their role in delivering ecosystem services, and the impact of human activities on ecosystem function.
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.