ArticleNature communications2026
Robust estimates of biodiversity change require high-resolution time series.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Robust estimates of biodiversity change are essential to inform management and conservation, and to address global biodiversity loss. However, common temporal data limitations may compromise trend accuracy. Here, we test how temporal resolution influences biodiversity trends using 1,353 river invertebrate time series collected annually for ≥ 10 years across 18 European countries. We simulate reduced sampling frequencies and durations and compare these trends to the complete time series. Reducing frequency from annual to every 2-6 years resulted in 87-73% of sites matching in trend directions, but only 78-39% matching in magnitude. Reducing duration from 10 to 9-2 years resulted in 88-52% direction matches and 86-8% magnitude matches. Similar results were observed for longer time series ( ≥ 20 years). Additionally, a comparison of two real-world monitoring datasets with different temporal resolutions shows that 53% of sites matched in direction, but only 12% in magnitude. Our findings indicate that biodiversity change magnitude is more sensitive to temporal resolution than direction. Consequently, accurate estimates of both direction and magnitude require high-resolution time series, whereas lower-resolution data may only reliably capture direction. These results highlight the value and limitations of temporal biodiversity data, and help plan future monitoring.
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.