ArticleAnnals of botany2026
How do the principal megabiases in the fossil record affect the discovery of past bryophyte diversity?
Article in Annals of botany, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe bryophyte fossil record is less abundant and diverse than predicted by the age of the group and as compared to the fossil record of younger plant groups. Taphonomic biases explain only partially its scarcity. Here, we investigate whether and how recently recognized megabiases that have the potential to affect the fossil record, in general, determine the structure of the bryophyte fossil record.
methodsWe update the pre-Miocene bryophyte fossil record with an ~30 % increase since its latest review (in 2018) and examine fossil bryophyte diversity against the temporal and spatial distribution of the rock record, and economic geography, to document patterns in potential presence, discovery and study of bryophyte fossils. KEY
resultsFossil bryophyte abundance is not correlated with the area of rocks exposed around the planet for different geological ages. More fossil bryophytes are known from younger rocks due to the overall richer fossil content of those rocks. More fossil bryophytes have been documented from the Northern Hemisphere, from developed countries, from countries where English is the official language and from countries where more specialists are exploring the fossil record.
conclusionsThe discovery and documentation of bryophyte fossils are biased by socio-economic and language factors, which affect significantly the structure of the fossil record of the group, at least in terms of taxonomic diversity. 'Parachute science' did not and does not significantly influence the documentation of fossil bryophytes.
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.