Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41115874›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Global sampling decline erodes science potential of natural history collections.

Owen Forbes, Andrew G Young, Peter H Thrall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

Owen ForbesNational Research Collections Australia, CSIRO, Building 803, Clunies Ross St, Acton, ACT, Australia. owen.forbes@csiro.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7634-8279
Andrew G YoungNational Research Collections Australia, CSIRO, Building 803, Clunies Ross St, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Peter H ThrallNational Research Collections Australia, CSIRO, Building 803, Clunies Ross St, Acton, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiodiversityNatural HistorySpecimen HandlingMuseums

Identifiers

PMID41115874
PMCPMC12537823

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.