Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42221016›Full record

ReviewJournal of plankton research

Preservation-induced distortions in aquatic protists: mechanistic biases, quantitative uncertainties and ecological consequences.

Albert Calbet

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of plankton research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Albert CalbetInstitut de Ciències del Mar, CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Department of Marine Biology and Oceanography, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1069-212X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aquatic protist quantification underpins our understanding of microbial food webs, biogeochemical cycling and ecosystem functioning. Yet, most estimates of abundance, biomass, size structure and community composition still rely on preserved samples, even though fixation alters the organisms it is meant to preserve. Here, I synthesize experimental, methodological and comparative studies spanning several decades to show that fixation is not neutral, but a systematic, taxon-dependent source of distortion. Across common fixatives, including Lugol's iodine, formaldehyde, protargol and glutaraldehyde, cell volume may shrink by >80% or swell by 30-55%, depending on taxon and protocol. Abundance estimates are likewise biased: aldehyde-preserved samples often yield ciliate counts 10-50% lower than Lugol-preserved samples, with even greater losses in fragile naked taxa, while some flagellate staining workflows recover only 20-30% of live abundance. These effects are further modified by storage time, handling and analytical method, generating error cascades that affect biomass estimates, trophic interpretation and carbon flux calculations. Because these artifacts vary across taxa and workflows, universal correction factors are not appropriate. Instead, fixation acts as a selective ecological filter, reshaping plankton communities before observation.

Indexed as

fixationglutaraldehydeLugolmicroalgaemicrozooplankton

Identifiers

PMID42221016
PMCPMC13220805

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.