Dataset Information

Trophic resources of the edaphic microarthropods: A worldwide review of the empirical evidence.

ABSTRACT: Ecosystem sustainable use requires reliable information about its biotic and abiotic structure and functioning. Accurate knowledge of trophic relations is central for the understanding of ecosystem dynamics, which in turn, is essential for food web stability analyzes and the development of sustainable practices. There is a rapid growth in the knowledge on how belowground biodiversity regulates the structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Although, the available information about trophic relationships is hard to find and fragmented. Most of the information available worldwide about the food resources of soil microarthropods suggested that out of 3105 hits of initial research on this aspect only a total of 196 published works related particular species, genera, and families to particular trophic resources, the majority of them dealing with soils of the Palearctic region. From the 196 publications we extracted 3009 records relating specific taxonomic groups to their trophic resources, 20 percent mention saprophytic fungi as a food resource, 16 percent cite microfauna, 11 percent mention bacteria, 10 percent litter and 8 percent cite Springtails. The available information was highly skewed, the 73.71 percent comes from Acari, and within these, 50.62 percent correspond just to Sarcoptiformes. The literature on Collembola is very scarce and most of the information is on arthropleona. The review also highlights that available research on the use of trophic resources comes from European sites and the information on this aspect from other parts of the soils of the world is still at large but unknown.

SUBMITTER: Velazco VN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10560771 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trophic resources of the edaphic microarthropods: A worldwide review of the empirical evidence.

Velazco Víctor Nicolás VN Saravia Leonardo Ariel LA Coviella Carlos Eduardo CE Falco Liliana Beatriz LB

Heliyon 20230928 10

Ecosystem sustainable use requires reliable information about its biotic and abiotic structure and functioning. Accurate knowledge of trophic relations is central for the understanding of ecosystem dynamics, which in turn, is essential for food web stability analyzes and the development of sustainable practices. There is a rapid growth in the knowledge on how belowground biodiversity regulates the structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Although, the available information about trop ...[more]

PMID: 37818009

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ecological niche modeling (ENM) is a broadly used tool in different fields of plant ecology. Despite the importance of edaphic conditions in determining the niche of terrestrial plant species, edaphic data have rarely been included in ENMs of plant species perhaps because such data are not available for many regions. Recently, edaphic data has been made available at a global scale allowing its potential inclusion and evaluation on ENM performance for plant species. Here, we take advantage of such data and address the following main questions: What is the influence of distinct predictor variables (e.g. climatic vs edaphic) on different ENM algorithms? and what is the relationship between the performance of different predictors and geographic characteristics of species? We used 125 plant species distributed over the Neotropical region to explore the effect on ENMs of using edaphic data available from the SoilGrids database and its combination with climatic data from the CHELSA database. In addition, we related these different predictor variables to geographic characteristics of the target species and different ENM algorithms. The use of different predictors (climatic, edaphic, and both) significantly affected model performance and spatial complexity of the predictions. We showed that the use of global edaphic plus climatic variables generates ENMs with similar or better accuracy compared to those constructed only with climate variables. Moreover, the performance of models considering these different predictors, separately or jointly, was related to geographic properties of species records, such as number and distribution range. The large geographic extent, the variability of environments and the different species' geographical characteristics considered here allowed us to demonstrate that global edaphic data adds useful information for plant ENMs. This is particularly valuable for studies of species that are distributed in regions where more detailed information on soil properties is poor or does not even exist.

Project description:BackgroundInnovation ecosystems are an important driver of regional economic growth and development. STEM assets connected to universities may play an important role in such ecosystems.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature relating to the effect of university STEM assets on regional economies and innovation ecosystems, providing a better understanding of how the impact is generated and constrained, as well as identifying any gaps in knowledge.MethodsKeyword and text word searches using the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Econlit (EBSCO) and ERIC (EBSCO) were performed in July 2021 and February 2023. Papers were double screened on abstract and title, and were included if there was consensus that they fulfilled the inclusion criteria of: (i) relating to an OECD country; (ii) having been published between 1 January 2010 and 28 February 2023; and (iii) concerning the impact of STEM assets. Data extraction was undertaken for each article by a single reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Due to the heterogeneity of the study designs and outcome measures used, it was not possible to perform a quantitative synthesis of results. A narrative synthesis was subsequently undertaken.ResultsOf the 162 articles identified for detailed review, 34 were accepted as being sufficiently relevant to the study to be included for final analysis. Three important features identified were that the literature: i) is predominately concerned with supporting new businesses; ii) describes a high level of involvement with a university in providing that support; and iii studies economic impacts at local, regional and national levels.DiscussionThe evidence points to a gap in the literature relating to looking at the broader impact of STEM assets and any corresponding transformational, system-level effects that go beyond narrowly defined, short to medium-term outcomes. The main limitation of this review is that information on STEM assets in the non-academic literature is not captured.

Project description:BackgroundThe increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making.Methodology/principal findingsIn this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.ConclusionsThis update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Dataset Information

Trophic resources of the edaphic microarthropods: A worldwide review of the empirical evidence.

Publications

Trophic resources of the edaphic microarthropods: A worldwide review of the empirical evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets