ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Contribution of microcosm experiments to conservation science.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 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.
- Variation in the Acceptability of Cereal Grasses byInsects · 2026Article
- Contribution of microcosm experiments to conservation science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Microcosms, or miniature experimental systems, have been used to develop models and theories in ecology. However, their contribution to conservation science is unclear. We explored the application, design, and impact of microcosms in conservation science from 469 systematically identified articles published from 1986 to 2023. We used generalized linear modeling to compare cumulative citations over time for each microcosm article with those of 71,738 nonmicrocosm articles in conservation science. We also surveyed the proportion of microcosm articles and nonmicrocosm articles focused on conservation science that were cited in policy documents. Two types of microcosms were used in conservation research: generalized microcosms (i.e., simplified analogies of systems used to test general theories and mathematical models) and specialized microcosms (i.e., recreations of specific ecosystems or species assemblages that test specific hypotheses). Microcosms were used to study biodiversity, invasive species, extinction, pollution, and climate change and were applied to a broad array of ecosystems and species. Microcosm experiments tended to be small (systems were liters in size or smaller) and conducted over short periods (weeks or months); could monitor study species for up to hundreds of generations; and had high sample replication. On average, microcosm studies were cited up to twice as often as nonmicrocosm studies 25 years after publication. Microcosm articles and nonmicrocosm articles focused on conservation science were cited in policy documents at similar rates to each other. We recommend that conservation science, which often focuses on urgent topics and rare or threatened ecosystems and species, may benefit from the manipulability and replicability that microcosms offer. Microcosm experiments may also be low risk for the study systems involved. Future uses of microcosms include providing experimental evidence and testing of conservation theories, models, and hypotheses.
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.