ArticlePeerJ2026
Recorded and predicted occurrence of slime moulds (Eumycetozoa) in Poland from Central and Eastern European data.
Article in PeerJ, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To quantify recorded and potential (model-based) occurrence of slime moulds (Eumycetozoa) in Poland within a harmonised Central and Eastern European (CEE) framework, and to provide a reproducible basis for targeted survey planning and biodiversity assessment. Location: Poland, with a comparative regional context based on harmonised occurrence data from 16 countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Methods: We used a taxonomically standardised, georeferenced Darwin Core dataset of Eumycetozoa compiled for 16 CEE countries. A Polish national checklist was assembled and annotated with habitat, substrate and national bibliographic information. We delineated an additional set of candidate taxa from the wider CEE pool and, where data permitted, evaluated them using presence-only species distribution models to estimate broad-scale climatic suitability in Poland and to identify regions and taxonomic groups concentrating potential diversity. Results: The Polish checklist comprised 278 species in six orders, strongly dominated by Physarales, Trichiales, Stemonitidales and Cribrariales, with known records spatially clustered in a limited set of well-surveyed regions. Comparison with the regional pool indicated 365 additional candidate taxa in 11 orders not yet recorded from Poland. Of these, 101 species could be modelled, and 31 achieved medium or high model-based suitability within Poland. Adding these 31 taxa to the recorded checklist yields a conservative estimate of 309 species likely to occur nationally, whereas including all candidates provides a theoretical regional maximum of 643 taxa. Model predictions highlighted western and northern voivodeships as concentrating suitable climatic conditions for multiple candidate species. Conclusions: Harmonised occurrence data, an annotated national checklist and model-based predictions together indicate substantial survey gaps and a considerable pool of likely yet unrecorded taxa in Poland. These outputs provide a transparent, reproducible framework to prioritise future fieldwork, fill spatial and taxonomic gaps, and support the development of slime moulds as biodiversity indicators for forests in Poland, with regional climatic priorities to be validated against forest type, substrate availability and survey-time weather.
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.