Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40546268›Full record

ArticleCommunications earth & environment2025

Prioritisation of ocean biodiversity data collection to deliver a sustainable ocean.

Amelia E H Bridges, Kerry L Howell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications earth & environment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Amelia E H BridgesSchool of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1422-9637
Kerry L HowellSchool of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fundamental ecological questions about the distribution of ocean life remain unanswered, hindering both the effective management of the ocean, and our comprehension of life on this planet. The benthic and pelagic realms are subject to different methods of study, and to understand where to best focus effort, a thorough understanding of existing information is required, allowing identification of critical knowledge gaps. Open-access data repositories provide a valuable means to identify such gaps; however, these repositories are subject to challenges in separating benthic from pelagic data. Here we demonstrate an automated data pipeline for extracting and separating benthic from pelagic data in open-access repositories. By stratifying data against essential ocean variables in a critical gap analysis, we show that large spatial and taxonomic biases exist in both the benthic and pelagic global datasets, favouring depths shallower than ~100 m, the northern hemisphere, and vertebrate species. The newly compiled, cleaned, and classified dataset is used to identify areas of chronic under sampling and high-priority regions for exploration. We argue that coordinated strategic prioritisation of sampling is needed to support modelling and prediction, enabling us to better manage our oceans and comprehend life on Earth.

Indexed as

BiogeographyEcosystem ecologyMarine biology

Identifiers

PMID40546268
PMCPMC12176621

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.