ArticleThe New phytologist2026
Documenting biodiversity with digital data: comparing and contrasting the efficacy of specimen-based and observation-based approaches.
Article in The New phytologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The utility of herbarium collections for genetic monitoring.Bioscience · 2026Review
- Anthropogenic Vessel Strike as a Threat to Spotted Seals (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Digitized herbarium specimens and iNaturalist observations provide invaluable plant biodiversity data. Combining these two data sources could create a more holistic representation of local biodiversity; however, understanding biases inherent to each is critical to determine how to best combine and utilize these data. We examined how the interpretation of taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity, naturalized species detection, and spatiotemporal coverage differ when using herbarium and iNaturalist data alone and together. We also examined how these patterns vary among areas with different degrees of collecting and community science efforts. Across areas, diversity was higher when data sources were combined, and complementary spatiotemporal coverage between data sources indicates that combining these data is useful; however, biases unique to each data source should be considered during analyses. Naturalized species detection, diversity patterns, and spatial biases varied by area, indicating that local context impacts our current views of biodiversity and should shape future monitoring. Our findings suggest that continued digitization and georeferencing of the herbarium records will help provide critical information about biodiversity, but a strategic collection of both specimens and iNaturalist observations moving forward will ensure that we are capturing biodiversity change in real time, helping us track responses to environmental change.
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.