Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40433873›Full record

ArticleeLife2025

Decoupling both local and global abundance from global range size, challenging the abundance-occupancy relationship in birds.

Shinichi Nakagawa, William K Cornwell, Corey T Callaghan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Shinichi NakagawaEvolution & Ecology Research Centre, Centre for Ecosystem Science, and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7765-5182
William K Cornwell *Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, Centre for Ecosystem Science, and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4080-4073
Corey T Callaghan *Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Davie, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0415-2709

Funding

Australian Research Council DP210100812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In macroecology, a classic empirical observation has been positive relationships between local abundance and species' range, known as the abundance-occupancy relationships (AORs). The existence of this empirical relationship has informed both theory development and applied questions. Notably, the spatial neutral model of biodiversity predicts AORs. Yet, based on the largest known meta-analysis of 16,562,995 correlations from ~3 billion bird observations, this relationship was indistinguishable from zero. Further, in a phylogenetic comparative analysis, species range had no predictive power over the global mean abundance of 7464 bird species. We suggest that publication and confirmation biases may have created AORs, an illusion of a 'universal' pattern. This nullification highlights the need for ecologists to instigate a credibility revolution like psychology, where many classic phenomena have been nullified.

Indexed as

Animal DistributionBiodiversityBirdsAnimalsPhylogenyPopulation Densitybirdscommunity ecologycomparative analysisecological lawsecologyevolutionary biologymeta-analysispublication bias

Identifiers

PMID40433873
PMCPMC12119083

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.