ArticleEcology and evolution2025
Estimating Rooting Depth From Herbarium Specimens Might Be More Accurate Than Using Large Trait Databases.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Estimating Rooting Depth From Herbarium Specimens Might Be More Accurate Than Using Large Trait Databases.Ecology and evolution · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global databases of plant functional traits are facing issues in data heterogeneity and taxonomical or geographical representativeness. To fill data gaps, natural history collections, such as herbaria, have become widely accepted as a potential source of data on functional traits. Surprisingly, root characteristics of plants still have not been studied on herbarium materials. We investigated whether rooting depth data from herbarium samples are realistic enough to be used in ecological studies. We measured original maximum rooting depth records on herbarium specimens and individuals from the field. Global data from the TRY database were also obtained. We tested the pairwise correlations between data from the three datasets. The effect of life form, taxonomic position, and average species height on rooting depth was also evaluated. Herbarium data showed strong correlation to field records, while records from the TRY database showed a weaker correlation with data measured on herbarium materials. Life form, taxonomic position, and height proved to be good predictors of rooting depth collected from the field or the herbarium; however, the model including data obtained from the TRY as the response variable performed weaker. We constructed an equation for predicting realistic average maximum rooting depth values of a given species based on herbarium data. Strong correlation among the field and herbarium datasets suggests that museal collections can be considered as resources of root trait data. Although herbarium-based rooting depth measurements usually represent lower values than field records, the correction of the herbarium-derived dataset is solvable. These corrected data might be more accurate than using large, global trait databases. Herbarium work might be a more sustainable, time- and cost-effective practice than field sampling. The inclusion of herbarium-derived information in trait-based studies, as well as in global databases, can improve these sources spatially, temporally, and taxonomically.
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.