ArticleNature communications2025
Global sampling decline erodes science potential of natural history collections.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Global Geography of Natural History Museum Specimen Holdings: A Time-Resolved Network Analysis of Mammal Collections, 1900-2020.Biodiversity data journal · 2026Article
- Global sampling decline erodes science potential of natural history collections.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Natural History Collections at the Crossroads: Shifting Priorities and Data-Driven Opportunities.Ecology letters · 2025Article
- If AI writes the paper, who validates the plankton?: a call to reinvest in empirical expertise before the validation gap becomes irreversible.Journal of plankton researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The world's natural history collections hold over two billion specimens, representing a unique spatial and taxonomic record of biodiversity on Earth over time. In recent decades, the accessibility and value of collections data have grown through specimen digitisation, enhanced connectivity, and enriched information from new genotyping and digital trait extraction. These advances are expanding the relevance of collections beyond taxonomy and evolutionary biology to fields like environmental monitoring, agriculture, biosecurity, and public health. However, their utility for addressing major global challenges relies on mobilising legacy data and continuing specimen collection and digitisation. Here we show substantial declines in the rates of collection of specimen data over recent decades, from analysis of over 150 million records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) spanning more than two centuries. The degree and timing of decline varies across taxonomic groups and geographical regions. Overall, these findings suggest that the value of natural history collections as global research infrastructure is eroding due to decreased collecting of specimen data across species, locations, and time. This is occurring precisely when applications for these data have never been more important, and advances in data analytics, AI and genomics promise to unlock deeper insights from natural history collections.
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.