ReviewThe New phytologist2026
Neglected seed dispersers and research compartmentalisation: how much do we know about what we don't know?
Review 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Seed dispersal is critical for long-term ecosystem resilience. However, excessive compartmentalisation of research into particular disperser guilds (e.g. birds) hampers our understanding of their relative contributions to overall seed dispersal, risking erroneous conclusions and overlooking key information gaps. Here, we evaluate how information about over 11 000 interactions between 1902 plant and 455 animal species in Europe accumulated over 400 years, and estimate information completeness across disperser guilds, plant types, and dispersal mechanisms (endozoochory, epizoochory, synzoochory, and myrmecochory). Information regarding the plants dispersed by each group of animals ranges from 27% to 79% sample coverage, with birds of prey (27%), ants (28%), and rodents (31%) particularly understudied. Most research focussed on fleshy-fruited plants rather than dry-fruited plants, and most on internal dispersal as the mechanism (endozoochory). Interestingly, scientists' perceptions of what are the most neglected disperser guilds do not correlate with our sample coverage estimates, showing an inability of the scientific community to identify information gaps. We urge researchers to bridge research silos and to study overlooked guilds, mechanisms, and plant types. Implementing community-level synthesis studies that integrate data across guilds is essential for accurately predicting ecosystem responses to global change and developing effective conservation strategies.
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.