Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions

Nature Communications

Volumn 6, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Meyer, Carsten ^a   Kreft, Holger ^a   Guralnick, Robert ^b   Jetz, Walter ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; DEVELOPING WORLD; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EVOLUTION; GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE; MAP; RESEARCH METHOD; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; VERTEBRATE;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; BIOME; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; FOREST; GRAIN; GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LAND USE; NONHUMAN; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SAVANNA; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES RICHNESS; TAIGA; TERRESTRIAL SPECIES; TUNDRA; ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISPERSAL; CLASSIFICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FACTUAL DATABASE; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; VERTEBRATE;

VERTEBRATA;

ANIMAL DISTRIBUTION; ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; INTERNATIONALITY; VERTEBRATES;

EID: 84941111392     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9221     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Whittaker, R. J. et al. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. Divers. Distrib. 11, 3-23 (2005).
2. Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164-1168 (2010).
3. Boitani, L. et al. What spatial data do we need to develop global mammal conservation strategies? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 366, 2623-2632 (2011).
4. Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M. & Martins, I. S. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 25-50 (2012).
5. Guisan, A. et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424-1435 (2013).
6. Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277-278 (2013).
7. Inouye, D. W. IPBES: global collaboration on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 371-371 (2014).
8. Edwards, J. L. Interoperability of biodiversity databases: biodiversity information on every desktop. Science 289, 2312-2314 (2000).
9. Graham, C. H., Ferrier, S., Huettman, F., Moritz, C. & Peterson, A. T. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 497-503 (2004).
10. Sousa-Baena, M. S., Garcia, L. C. & Peterson, A. T. Completeness of digital accessible knowledge of the plants of Brazil and priorities for survey and inventory. Divers. Distrib. 20, 369-381 (2014).
11. Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241-244 (2014).
12. Boakes, E. H. et al. Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000385 (2010).
13. Jetz, W., McPherson, J. M. & Guralnick, R. P. Integrating biodiversity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 151-159 (2012).
14. Feeley, K. J. & Silman, M. R. The data void in modeling current and future distributions of tropical species. Glob. Chang. Biol 17, 626-630 (2011).
15. Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19, 181-197 (2009).
16. Yang, W., Ma, K. & Kreft, H. Geographical sampling bias in a large distributional database and its effects on species richness-environment models. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1415-1426 (2013).
17. Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8, 993-1009 (2005).
18. Vollmar, A. et al. Natural history specimen digitization: challenges and concerns. Biodivers. Informatics 1, 93-112 (2010).
19. Ahrends, A. et al. Funding begets biodiversity. Divers. Distrib. 17, 191-200 (2011).
20. Amano, T. & Sutherland, W. J. Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20122649 (2013).
21. Freitag, S., Hobson, C., Biggs, H. C. & Jaarsveld, A. S. Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. Anim. Conserv. 1, 119-127 (1998).
22. Moerman, D. E. & Estabrook, G. F. The botanist effect: counties with maximal species richness tend to be home to universities and botanists. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1969-1974 (2006).
23. Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Kitching, I. J., Jetz, W., Nagel, P. & Beck, J. Mapping the biodiversity of tropical insects: species richness and inventory completeness of African sphingid moths. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 586-595 (2013).
24. Yang, W., Ma, K. & Kreft, H. Environmental and socio-economic factors shaping the geography of floristic collections in China. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1284-1292 (2014).
25. Soberón, J. et al. Assessing completeness of biodiversity databases at different spatial scales. Ecography 30, 152-160 (2007).
26. Smith, R. J., Verssimo, D., Leader-Williams, N., Cowling, R. M. & Knight, A. T. et al. Let the locals lead. Nature 462, 280-281 (2009).
27. Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222-226 (2008).
28. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. X/7. Examination of the outcome-oriented goals and targets and associated indicators and consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010. Available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-07-en.pdf (2010).
29. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and across all scales (deliverable 2 (a)). Available at http://www.ipbes.net/images/documents/plenary/third/information/INF-4/IPBES-3-INF-4.pdf (2015).
30. Hobern, D. et al. Global Biodiversity Informatics Outlook: Delivering Biodiversity Knowledge in the Information Age. Availble at http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc-id=5353 (2013).
31. Hurlbert, A. H. & Jetz, W. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13384-13389 (2007).
32. Hawkins, B. A., Rueda, M. & Rodrguez, M. Á . What do range maps and surveys tell us about diversity patterns? Folia Geobot. 43, 345-355 (2008).
33. Collen, B., Ram, M., Zamin, T. & McRae, L. The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 1, 75-88 (2008).
34. Vale, M. M. & Jenkins, C. N. Across-taxa incongruence in patterns of collecting bias. J. Biogeogr. 39, 1744-1748 (2012).
35. Beck, J. et al. What's on the horizon for macroecology? Ecography 35, 673-683 (2012).
36. Menke, S. B., Holway, D. A., Fisher, R. N. & Jetz, W. Characterizing and predicting species distributions across environments and scales: Argentine ant occurrences in the eye of the beholder. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 18, 50-63 (2009).
37. Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).
38. Feeley, K. J. & Silman, M. R. Keep collecting: accurate species distribution modelling requires more collections than previously thought. Divers. Distrib. 17, 1132-1140 (2011).
39. Wisz, M. S. et al. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 14, 763-773 (2008).
40. Cayuela, L. et al. Species distribution modeling in the tropics: problems, potentialities, and the role of biological data for effective species conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2, 319-352 (2009).
41. Fithian, W., Elith, J., Hastie, T. & Keith, D. A. Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 424-438 (2015).
42. Dorazio, R. M. Accounting for imperfect detection and survey bias in statistical analysis of presence-only data. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1472-1484 (2014).
43. Soria-Auza, R. W. & Kessler, M. The influence of sampling intensity on the perception of the spatial distribution of tropical diversity and endemism: a case study of ferns from Bolivia. Divers. Distrib. 14, 123-130 (2008).
44. Brito, J. C. et al. Unravelling biodiversity, evolution and threats to conservation in the Sahara-Sahel. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 89, 215-231 (2013).
45. King, D. A. The scientific impact of nations-what different countries get for their research spending. Nature 430, 311-316 (2002).
46. Hochachka, W. M. et al. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 130-137 (2012).
47. Beck, J., Ballesteros-Mejia, L., Nagel, P. & Kitching, I. J. Online solutions and the "Wallacean shortfall": what does GBIF contribute to our knowledge of species' ranges? Divers. Distrib 19, 1043-1050 (2013).
48. Whitlock, M. C. Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 61-65 (2011).
49. Enke, N. et al. The user's view on biodiversity data sharing-investigating facts of acceptance and requirements to realize a sustainable use of research data. Ecol. Inform. 11, 25-33 (2012).
50. Arinõ, A. H., Chavan, V. & King, N. The Biodiversity Informatics Potential Index. BMC Bioinformatics 12, S4 (2011).
51. Pereira, H. M. et al. Global biodiversity monitoring. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 458-459 (2010).
52. Keil, P., Wilson, A. M. & Jetz, W. Uncertainty, priors, autocorrelation and disparate data in downscaling of species distributions. Divers. Distrib. 20, 797-812 (2014).
53. Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H. M. & Boitani, L. Update or outdate: long-term viability of the IUCN red list. Conserv. Lett. 7, 126-130 (2014).
54. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 50 CFR Part 224. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;, Final Endangered Listing of Five Species of Sawfish Under the Endangered Species Act; Final Rule. 79 (239) (2014).
55. Waldron, A. et al. Targeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 12144-12148 (2013).
56. Naidoo, R. & Adamowicz, W. L. Effects of economic prosperity on numbers of threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 15, 1021-1029 (2001).
57. Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109-112 (2012).
58. CONABIO. Dos Décadas de Historia, 1992-2012. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso dela Biodiversidad (Conabio) Liga Periférico-Insurgentes Sur 4903 Parques del Pedregal, Tlalpan, 14010 México, D.F. Available at http://www.conabio.gob.mx/web/pdf/Conabio-Dos-Decadas-de-Historia-web.pdf (2012).
59. Escobar, H. Brazil cuts red tape stifling biodiversity studies. Science 348, 952-953 (2015).
60. Rocchini, D. et al. Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: the need for maps of ignorance. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35, 211-226 (2011).
61. Costello, M. J., May, R. M. & Stork, N. E. Response to comments on "Can we name Earth's species before they go extinct?". Science 341, 237 (2013).
62. Atlas of Living Australia. Spatial Portal. Available at http://spatial.ala.org.au/(2015).
63. Manceur, A. M. & Kühn, I. Inferring model-based probability of occurrence from preferentially sampled data with uncertain absences using expert knowledge. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 739-750 (2014).
64. Grantham, H. S. et al. Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning. Conserv. Lett. 1, 190-198 (2008).
65. Kier, G. & Barthlott, W. Measuring and mapping endemism and species richness: a new methodological approach and its application on the flora of Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 10, 1513-1529 (2001).
66. Nelson, A. Travel time to major cities: a global map of accessibility. Global Environment Monitoring Unit-Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra Italy. Available at http://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/gam/(2008).
67. Partow, A. The Global Airport Database. Release Version 0.0.1. Available at http://www.partow.net/miscellaneous/airportdatabase/(2003).
68. Institute for Economics and Peace. Global Peace Index 2008-2012 (Institute for Economics and Peace, Sydney, Australia. Available at http://www. visionofhumanity.org/, 2012).
69. Crase, B., Liedloff, A. C. & Wintle, B. A. A new method for dealing with residual spatial autocorrelation in species distribution models. Ecography 35, 879-888 (2012).
70. Dutilleul, P. Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49, 305-314 (1993).