A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review

In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of ecology 2021-02, Vol.109 (2), p.600-613
Hauptverfasser: Garland, Gina, Banerjee, Samiran, Edlinger, Anna, Miranda Oliveira, Emily, Herzog, Chantal, Wittwer, Raphaël, Philippot, Laurent, Maestre, Fernando T., Heijden, Marcel G. A., Hector, Andrew
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 613
container_issue 2
container_start_page 600
container_title The Journal of ecology
container_volume 109
creator Garland, Gina
Banerjee, Samiran
Edlinger, Anna
Miranda Oliveira, Emily
Herzog, Chantal
Wittwer, Raphaël
Philippot, Laurent
Maestre, Fernando T.
Heijden, Marcel G. A.
Hector, Andrew
description In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions. In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermo
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1365-2745.13511
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03274499v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2487270544</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkL1PwzAQxS0EEqUws1piYkh7dux8sEVVoaBILDBbjmOrLmld7LRV_nsSAqzcctLd7z3dPYRuCcxIX3MSJzyiKeMzEnNCztDkb3KOJgCURsDS9BJdhbABgCTlMEFlgVXjgva4ce4Dyxa3a43NYada63YBV3ptdzXWyoUutHqLt4emtb972di2e8AF9vpo9ekaXRjZBH3z06fo_XH5tlhF5evT86IoIxXnQCKTmbjKKM9kBiRJieYyYaZm1GScsJwTYxKWSwoElDE10VQxVvNKJ4mq4qqKp-h-9F3LRuy93UrfCSetWBWlGGYQ92-zPD-Snr0b2b13nwcdWrFxB99fHgRlWUpT4Iz11HyklHcheG3-bAmIIV4xhCmGMMV3vL2Cj4qTbXT3Hy5elotR9wWHFnrB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2487270544</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Garland, Gina ; Banerjee, Samiran ; Edlinger, Anna ; Miranda Oliveira, Emily ; Herzog, Chantal ; Wittwer, Raphaël ; Philippot, Laurent ; Maestre, Fernando T. ; Heijden, Marcel G. A. ; Hector, Andrew</creator><creatorcontrib>Garland, Gina ; Banerjee, Samiran ; Edlinger, Anna ; Miranda Oliveira, Emily ; Herzog, Chantal ; Wittwer, Raphaël ; Philippot, Laurent ; Maestre, Fernando T. ; Heijden, Marcel G. A. ; Hector, Andrew</creatorcontrib><description>In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions. In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Based on the literature analysis, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2745</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.13511</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural ecosystems ; agroecosystems ; Arid zones ; biodiversity ; drylands ; Ecosystem assessment ; ecosystem multifunctionality ; Ecosystem services ; Ecosystems ; Electromagnetic fields ; Environmental Sciences ; Forest ecosystems ; forests ; functions ; Grasslands ; Low frequency ; Mathematical analysis ; microbes ; Terrestrial ecosystems ; Terrestrial environments</subject><ispartof>The Journal of ecology, 2021-02, Vol.109 (2), p.600-613</ispartof><rights>2020 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>Journal of Ecology © 2021 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1402-0171 ; 0000-0001-7040-1924 ; 0000-0002-2129-7195 ; 0000-0002-7434-4856 ; 0000-0002-1657-3669 ; 0000-0003-3461-4492</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1365-2745.13511$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1365-2745.13511$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03274499$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Garland, Gina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banerjee, Samiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edlinger, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, Chantal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittwer, Raphaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Philippot, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maestre, Fernando T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hector, Andrew</creatorcontrib><title>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</title><title>The Journal of ecology</title><description>In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions. In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Based on the literature analysis, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.</description><subject>Agricultural ecosystems</subject><subject>agroecosystems</subject><subject>Arid zones</subject><subject>biodiversity</subject><subject>drylands</subject><subject>Ecosystem assessment</subject><subject>ecosystem multifunctionality</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Electromagnetic fields</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Forest ecosystems</subject><subject>forests</subject><subject>functions</subject><subject>Grasslands</subject><subject>Low frequency</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>microbes</subject><subject>Terrestrial ecosystems</subject><subject>Terrestrial environments</subject><issn>0022-0477</issn><issn>1365-2745</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkL1PwzAQxS0EEqUws1piYkh7dux8sEVVoaBILDBbjmOrLmld7LRV_nsSAqzcctLd7z3dPYRuCcxIX3MSJzyiKeMzEnNCztDkb3KOJgCURsDS9BJdhbABgCTlMEFlgVXjgva4ce4Dyxa3a43NYada63YBV3ptdzXWyoUutHqLt4emtb972di2e8AF9vpo9ekaXRjZBH3z06fo_XH5tlhF5evT86IoIxXnQCKTmbjKKM9kBiRJieYyYaZm1GScsJwTYxKWSwoElDE10VQxVvNKJ4mq4qqKp-h-9F3LRuy93UrfCSetWBWlGGYQ92-zPD-Snr0b2b13nwcdWrFxB99fHgRlWUpT4Iz11HyklHcheG3-bAmIIV4xhCmGMMV3vL2Cj4qTbXT3Hy5elotR9wWHFnrB</recordid><startdate>202102</startdate><enddate>202102</enddate><creator>Garland, Gina</creator><creator>Banerjee, Samiran</creator><creator>Edlinger, Anna</creator><creator>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</creator><creator>Herzog, Chantal</creator><creator>Wittwer, Raphaël</creator><creator>Philippot, Laurent</creator><creator>Maestre, Fernando T.</creator><creator>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</creator><creator>Hector, Andrew</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1402-0171</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7040-1924</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-7195</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-4856</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-3669</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-4492</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202102</creationdate><title>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</title><author>Garland, Gina ; Banerjee, Samiran ; Edlinger, Anna ; Miranda Oliveira, Emily ; Herzog, Chantal ; Wittwer, Raphaël ; Philippot, Laurent ; Maestre, Fernando T. ; Heijden, Marcel G. A. ; Hector, Andrew</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3901-f8f3b8258a801671e5a64fd42f8514951ff649a2010cffd1e2c44d5be66cb3bb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Agricultural ecosystems</topic><topic>agroecosystems</topic><topic>Arid zones</topic><topic>biodiversity</topic><topic>drylands</topic><topic>Ecosystem assessment</topic><topic>ecosystem multifunctionality</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Electromagnetic fields</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Forest ecosystems</topic><topic>forests</topic><topic>functions</topic><topic>Grasslands</topic><topic>Low frequency</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>microbes</topic><topic>Terrestrial ecosystems</topic><topic>Terrestrial environments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Garland, Gina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Banerjee, Samiran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edlinger, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, Chantal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wittwer, Raphaël</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Philippot, Laurent</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maestre, Fernando T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hector, Andrew</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Garland, Gina</au><au>Banerjee, Samiran</au><au>Edlinger, Anna</au><au>Miranda Oliveira, Emily</au><au>Herzog, Chantal</au><au>Wittwer, Raphaël</au><au>Philippot, Laurent</au><au>Maestre, Fernando T.</au><au>Heijden, Marcel G. A.</au><au>Hector, Andrew</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of ecology</jtitle><date>2021-02</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>109</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>600</spage><epage>613</epage><pages>600-613</pages><issn>0022-0477</issn><eissn>1365-2745</eissn><abstract>In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it, and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies: what should or should not be considered appropriate measures for ecosystem functions. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types and ecosystem service categories. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Synthesis. Based on the literature analysis, it is clear that there is no general agreement regarding which measurements should or should not be considered functions in the field of ecology. To address this issue, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions. In recent years there has been an upsurge of studies on ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF), or the ability of ecosystems to simultaneously provide multiple functions and/or services. The concept of EMF itself, the analytical approaches used to calculate it and its implications depending on the spatial scale and field of study have been discussed in detail. However, to date, there has been little dialogue concerning the basis of EMF studies‐ the functions themselves‐ nor what appropriate measures for ecosystem functions are. To begin this discussion, we performed an in‐depth review of EMF studies across four major terrestrial ecosystems (agroecosystems, drylands, forests and grasslands) by analysing 82 studies, which together have assessed 775 ecosystem functions from a variety of field and greenhouse experiments across the globe. The number of ecosystem functions analysed varied from two to 82 per study and we found large differences in the distribution of functions across ecosystem types. Furthermore, there was little explanation of why certain variables were included in the EMF calculation or how they relate to ecosystem functioning. Based on the literature analysis, we propose a general guideline for determining and measuring appropriate functions.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1365-2745.13511</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1402-0171</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7040-1924</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2129-7195</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-4856</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-3669</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-4492</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-0477
ispartof The Journal of ecology, 2021-02, Vol.109 (2), p.600-613
issn 0022-0477
1365-2745
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03274499v1
source Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Agricultural ecosystems
agroecosystems
Arid zones
biodiversity
drylands
Ecosystem assessment
ecosystem multifunctionality
Ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Electromagnetic fields
Environmental Sciences
Forest ecosystems
forests
functions
Grasslands
Low frequency
Mathematical analysis
microbes
Terrestrial ecosystems
Terrestrial environments
title A closer look at the functions behind ecosystem multifunctionality: A review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T23%3A38%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20closer%20look%20at%20the%20functions%20behind%20ecosystem%20multifunctionality:%20A%20review&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20ecology&rft.au=Garland,%20Gina&rft.date=2021-02&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=600&rft.epage=613&rft.pages=600-613&rft.issn=0022-0477&rft.eissn=1365-2745&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1365-2745.13511&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2487270544%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2487270544&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true