Taxonomist survey biases and the unveiling of biodiversity patterns

Biological Conservation

Volumn 142, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 462-467

  Sastre, Pablo ^a   Lobo, Jorge M ^a  

^a MUSEO NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS NATURALES   (Spain)

Author keywords

Species richness representations; Survey biases; Survey designs; Survey strategies; Virtual scenarios

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BIOLOGICAL SURVEY; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; PATCHINESS; RARITY; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES RICHNESS; TAXONOMY;

EID: 58149260203     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anderson R.P. Real vs. artefactual absences in species distributions: tests for Oryzomys albigularis (Rodentia: Muridae) in Venezuela. Journal of Biogeography 30 (2003) 591-605
2. Austin M.P., and Heyligers P.C. Vegetation survey design for conservation: gradsect sampling of forest in North-eastern New South Wales. Biological Conservation 50 (1989) 13-32
3. Bisby F.A. The quiet revolution: biodiversity informatics and the internet. Science 289 (2000) 2309-2312
4. Blackburn T.M., and Gaston K.J. Spatial patterns in the species richness of birds in the new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London series B 351 (1996) 897-912
5. Cabrero F.J., and Lobo J.M. Estimating the number of species not yet described and their characteristics: the case of western Palaearctic dung beetle species (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Biodiversity and Conservation 12 (2003) 147-166
6. Chapman, A.D., 2005. Uses of primary species-occurrence data, version 1.0. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen.
7. De Gruijter J., Brus D., Bierkens M.F.P., and Knotters M. Sampling for Natural Resource Monitoring (2006), Springer-Verlag, Berlin
8. Dennis R.L.H., and Hardy P.B. Targeting squares for survey: predicting species richness and incidence for a butterfly atlas. Global Ecology and Biogeography 8 (1999) 443-454
9. Dennis R.L.H., and Thomas C.D. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder's home range. Journal of Insect Conservation 4 (2000) 73-77
10. Dennis R.L.H., Shreeve T.G., Isaac N.J.B., Roy D.B., Hardy P.B., Fox R., and Asher J. The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biological Conservation 128 (2006) 486-492
11. Dennis R.L.H., Sparks T.H., and Hardy P.B. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. Journal of Insect Conservation 3 (1999) 33-42
12. Diniz-Filho J.A.F., Bastos R.P., Rangel T.F.L.V.B., Bini L.M., Carvalho P., and Silva R.J. Macroecological correlates and spatial patterns of anuran description dates in the Brazilian Cerrado. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14 (2005) 469-477
13. Faith, D., 2002. Those complementarity analysis do not reveal extent of conservation conflict in Africa. Science dEbate. .
14. Funk V.A., and Richardson K.S. Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it. Systematic Biology 51 (2002) 303-316
15. GBIF, 2003. Global biodiversity information facility strategic plan. .
16. Godfray C. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417 (2002) 17-19
17. Graham C.H., Ferrier S., Huettman F., Moritz C., and Peterson A.T. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 (2004) 497-503
18. Grenyer R., Orme C.D.L., Jackson S.F., Thomas G.H., Davies R.G., Davies T.J., Jones K.E., Olson V.A., Ridgely R.S., Rasmussen P.C., Ding T.-S., Bennett P.M., Blackburn T.M., Gaston K.J., Gittleman J.L., and Owens I.P.F. Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates. Nature 444 (2006) 93-96
19. Gu W., and Swihart R.K. Absent or undetected? effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife-habitat models. Biological Conservation 116 (2004) 195-203
20. Guralnick R.P., Hill A.W., and Lane M. Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecology Letters 10 (2007) 663-672
21. Hortal J., and Lobo J.M. Towards a synecological framework for systematic conservation planning. Biodiversity Informatics 3 (2006) 16-45
22. Hortal J., Lobo J.M., and Jiménez-Valverde A. Limitations of biodiversity databases: case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Conservation Biology 21 (2007) 853-863
23. Hortal J., Jiménez-Valverde A., Gómez J.F., Lobo J.M., and Baselga A. Historical bias in biodiversity inventories affects the observed realized niche of the species. Oikos 117 (2008) 847-858
24. Hortal J., and Lobo J.M. An ED-based protocol for optimal sampling of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 14 (2005) 2913-2947
25. Kadmon R., Farber O., and Danin A. A systematic analysis of factors affecting the performance of climatic envelope models. Ecological Applications 13 (2003) 853-867
26. Kadmon R., Farber O., and Danin A. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecological Applications 14 (2004) 401-413
27. Kéry M., Royle J.A., and Schmid H. Importance of sampling design and analysis in animal population studies: a comment on Sergio et al. Journal of Applied Ecology 45 (2008) 981-986
28. Lamoreux J.F., Morrison J.C., Ricketts T.H., Olson D.M., Dinerstein E., McKnight M.W., and Shugart H.H. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440 (2005) 212-214
29. Lobo J.M., and Martín-Piera F. Searching for a predictive model for Iberian dung beetle species richness based on spatial and environmental variables. Conservation Biology 16 (2002) 158-173
30. Lobo J.M., Baselga A., Hortal J., Jiménez-Valverde A., and Gómez J.F. How does the knowledge about the spatial distribution of Iberian dung beetle species accumulate over time?. Diversity and Distributions 13 (2007) 772-780
31. Martínez-Meyer E. Climate change and biodiversity: some considerations in forecasting shifts in species potential distributions. Biodiversity Informatics 2 (2005) 42-55
32. May R.M. How many species?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 330 (1990) 171-182
33. Moerman D.E., and Estabrook G.F. The botanist effect: counties with maximal species richness tend to be home to universities and botanists. Journal of Biogeography 33 (2006) 1969-1974
34. Nelson B.W., Ferreira C.A.C., da Silva M.F., and Kawasaki M.L. Endemism centers, refugia and botanical collection density in Brazilian Amazonia. Nature 345 (1990) 714-716
35. Parnell J.A.N., Simpson D.A., Moat J., Kirkup D.W., Chantaranothai P., Boyce P.C., Bygrave P., Dransfield S., Jebb M.H.P., Macklin J., Meade C., Middleton D.J., Muasya A.M., Prajaksood A., Pendry C.A., Poomar R., Suddee S., and Wilkin P. Plant collecting spread and densities: their potential impact on biogeographical studies in Thailand. Journal of Biogeography 30 (2003) 193-209
36. Pautasso M., and McKinney M.L. The botanist effect revisited: plant species richness, county area, and human population size in the United States. Conservation Biology 21 (2007) 1333-1340
37. Peterson A.T., Navarro-Sigüenza A.G., and Benítez-Díaz H. The need for continued scientific collecting: a geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens. Ibis 140 (1998) 288-294
38. Reddy S., and Dávalos L.M. Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. Journal of Biogeography 30 (2003) 1719-1727
39. Reutter B.A., Helfer V., Hirzel A.H., and Vogel P. Modelling habitat-suitability using museum collections: an example with three sympatric Apodemus species from the Alps. Journal of Biogeography 30 (2003) 581-590
40. Romo H., García-Barros E., and Lobo J.M. Identifying recorder-induced geographic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography 29 (2006) 873-885
41. In: Saarenmaa H., and Nielsen E.S. (Eds). Towards a global biological information infrastructure. Challenges, Opportunities, Synergies, and the Role of Entomology (2002), European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
42. Sánchez-Fernández, D., Lobo, J.M., Abellán, P., Ribera, I., 2008. Bias in freshwater biodiversity sampling: the case of Iberian water beetles. Diversity and Distributions, DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00474.x.
43. Schulman L., Toivonen T., and Ruokolainen K. Analysing botanical collecting effort in Amazonia and correcting for it in species rage estimation. Journal of Biogeography 34 (2007) 1388-1399
44. Soberón J., Llorente J., and Benítez H. An international view of national biological surveys. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83 (1996) 562-573
45. Soberón J., and Peterson A.T. Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London series B 359 (2004) 689-698
46. Soberón J.M., Llorente J., and Oñate L. The use of specimen-label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican Papilionid and Pierid butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation 9 (2000) 1441-1466
47. Williams P.H., Margules C.R., and Hilbert D.W. Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. Journal of Bioscience 27 (2002) 327-338
48. Whittaker R.J., Araújo M.B., Jepson P., Ladle R.J., Watson J.E.M., and Willis K.J. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Diversity and Distributions 11 (2005) 3-23
49. Zaniewski A.E., Lehmann A., and Overton J.M. Predicting species spatial distributions using presence-only data: a case study of native New Zealand ferns. Ecological Modelling 157 (2002) 261-280