Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences

Scientific Reports

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Troudet, Julien ^a   Grandcolas, Philippe ^a   Blin, Amandine ^b   Vignes Lebbe, Régine ^a   Legendre, Frédéric ^a  

^a SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^b MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; HUMAN; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; SPECIES; WEB OF SCIENCE; AGARICALES; ANIMAL; CLASSIFICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PHYLOGENY; PLANT; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL BIAS;

AGARICALES; ANIMALS; BIAS; BIODIVERSITY; CLASSIFICATION; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; PHYLOGENY; PLANTS;

EID: 85027880727     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. & Tilman, D. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol. 4, e277 (2006).
2. Cardinale, B. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59-67 (2012).
3. Gascon, C. et al. The importance and benefits of species. Curr. Biol. 25, R431-R438 (2015).
4. Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19-26 (2012).
5. Dirzo, R. & Raven, P. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 28, 137-167 (2003).
6. Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253-e1400253 (2015).
7. Feeley, K., Stroud, J. & Perez, T. Most 'global' reviews of species' responses to climate change are not truly global. Divers. Distrib. 23, 231-234 (2016).
8. Di Marco, M. et al. Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 32-42 (2017).
9. Bonnet, X., Shine, R. & Lourdais, O. Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 1-3 (2002).
10. Clark, J. A. & May, R. M. How biased are we?: Even now, conservation research is still lopsided. Conserv. Practice 3(3), 28-29 (2002).
11. Leather, S. R. Taxonomic chauvinism threatens the future of entomology. Biologist 56, 10-13 (2009).
12. Ford, A., Cooke, S., Goheen, J. & Young, T. Conserving megafauna or sacrificing biodiversity? BioScience biw163 (2017).
13. McKinney, M. High rates of extinction and threat in poorly studied taxa. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1273-1281 (1999).
14. Seddon, P., Soorae, P. & Launay, F. Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects. Anim. Conserv. 8, 51-58 (2005).
15. Lawler, J., White, D., Sifneos, J. & Master, L. Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 17, 875-882 (2003).
16. Mouillot, D. et al. Rare Species Support Vulnerable Functions in High-Diversity Ecosystems. PLoS Biol 11, e1001569 (2013).
17. Wilson, E. O. A global biodiversity map. Science 289, 2279-2279 (2000).
18. May, R. How many species are there on Earth? Science 241, 1441-1449 (1988).
19. Gaston, K. & May, R. Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356, 281-282 (1992).
20. Pawar, S. Taxonomic chauvinism and the methodologically challenged. BioScience 53, 861 (2003).
21. Stahlschmidt, Z. Taxonomic chauvinism revisited: insight from parental care research. PLoS ONE 6, e24192 (2011).
22. Wilson, J., Proche, I., Braschler, B., Dixon, E. & Richardson, D. The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 409-414 (2007).
23. Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Ramírez, L. & Benayas, J. What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol. Conserv. 142, 1370-1380 (2009).
24. Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. in Press (2016).
25. Costello, M., May, R. & Stork, N. Can we name Earth's species before they go extinct? Science 339, 413-416 (2013).
26. Michener, W. & Jones, M. Ecoinformatics: supporting ecology as a data-intensive science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 85-93 (2012).
27. Duke, C. S. & Porter, J. H. The ethics of data sharing and reuse in biology. BioScience 63, 483-489 (2013).
28. Peterson, A., Soberón, J. & Krishtalka, L. A global perspective on decadal challenges and priorities in biodiversity informatics. BMC Ecol. 15, 15 (2015).
29. Boyd, D. & Crawford, K. Critical questions for big data. Inform. Commun. Soc. 15, 662-679 (2012).
30. Troia, M. & McManamay, R. Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open-access biodiversity databases in the United States. Ecol. Evol. 6, 4654-4669 (2016).
31. Faith, D. et al. Bridging the biodiversity data gaps: Recommendations to meet users' data needs. Biodivers. Inform. 8, 41-58 (2013).
32. Yesson, C. et al. How global is the global biodiversity information facility? PLoS ONE 2, e1124 (2007).
33. Gaiji, S. et al. Content assessment of the primary biodiversity data published through GBIF network: Status, challenges and potentials. Biodivers. Inform. 8, 94-172 (2013).
34. García-Roselló, E. et al. Can we derive macroecological patterns from primary Global Biodiversity Information Facility data? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 335-347 (2014).
35. Maldonado, C. et al. Estimating species diversity and distribution in the era of big data: To what extent can we trust public databases? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 973-984 (2015).
36. Sikes, D., Copas, K., Hirsch, T., Longino, J. & Schigel, D. On natural history collections, digitized and not: A response to Ferro and Flick. ZooKeys 618, 145-158 (2016).
37. McKenzie, A. & Robertson, P. Which species are we researching and why? A case study of the ecology of british breeding birds. PLoS ONE 10, e0131004 (2015).
38. Donaldson, M. R. et al. Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets 1, 105-113 (2016).
39. Pérez-Ponce de León, G. & Poulin, R. Taxonomic distribution of cryptic diversity among metazoans: not so homogeneous after all. Biol. Letters 12, 20160371 (2016).
40. Driscoll, D. et al. The trajectory of dispersal research in conservation biology. Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 9, e95053 (2014).
41. Hortal, J., Lobo, J. & Jiménez-Valverde, A. Limitations of biodiversity databases: case study on seed-plant diversity in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Conserv. Biol. 21, 853-863 (2007).
42. Yang, W., Ma, K. & Kreft, H. Geographical sampling bias in a large distributional database and its effects on species richnessenvironment models. J. Biogeogr. 40, 1415-1426 (2013).
43. Ressurreição, A. et al. Different cultures, different values: The role of cultural variation in public's WTP for marine species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 145, 148-159 (2012).
44. Stein, B. A., Master, L. L. & Morse, L. E. Taxonomic bias and vulnerable species. Science 297, 1807 (2002).
45. Sullivan, B. et al. eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2282-2292 (2009).
46. Escribano, N., Ariño, A. & Galicia, D. Biodiversity data obsolescence and land uses changes. PeerJ 4, e2743 (2016).
47. Shine, R. & Bonnet, X. Snakes: A new 'model organism'in ecological research? Trends Ecol. Evol. 15(6), 221-222 (2000).
48. Turpie, J. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol. Econ. 46, 199-216 (2003).
49. Cotterill, F., Al-Rasheid, K. & Foissner, W. Conservation of protists: is it needed at all? Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 427-443 (2007).
50. Hochachka, W. et al. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 130-137 (2012).
51. Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R. & Bonney, R. The history of public participation in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 285-290 (2012).
52. Eiben, C. et al. Increased Diels-Alderase activity through backbone remodeling guided by Foldit players. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 190-192 (2012).
53. Lieberoth, A. Getting humans to do quantum optimization-user acquisition, engagement and early results from the citizen cyberscience game Quantum Moves. Human Comput. 1(2), 219-244 (2014).
54. Marx, V. Neuroscience waves to the crowd. Nat. Methods 10, 1069-1074 (2013).
55. Zapponi, L. et al. Citizen science data as an efficient tool for mapping protected saproxylic beetles. Biol. Conserv. in Press (2016).
56. Gardiner, M. et al. Lessons from lady beetles: Accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 471-476 (2012).
57. Newman, G. et al. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 298-304 (2012).
58. Kamp, J., Oppel, S., Heldbjerg, H., Nyegaard, T. & Donald, P. Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population declines of common birds in Denmark. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1024-1035 (2016).
59. Cardoso, P., Erwin, T., Borges, P. & New, T. The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2647-2655 (2011).
60. Barnosky, A. et al. Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51-57 (2011).
61. Feeley, K. & Silman, M. The data void in modeling current and future distributions of tropical species. Global Change Biol. 17, 626-630 (2010).
62. McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. Generalized Linear Models, Second edn. Chapman and Hall, London (1989).
63. Zuur, A. F., Leno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Springer (2009).
64. Husson, F., Lê, S., Pagès, J. Analyse de Données avec R. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes (2009).
65. Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Use R). Springer, 2009.
66. Auguie, B. gridExtra: Miscellaneous functions for "grid" graphics. Cran. r-project. org. At http://CRAN. R-project. org/ package=gridExtra, package version 2. 2. 1 (2017).
67. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. (Springer, New York, 1994).
68. Wickham, H. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J. Stat. Soft. 40 (2011).
69. Wickham, H. S: Scale functions for visualization. Cran. r-project. org. At http://CRAN. R-project. org/package=scales, package version 0. 4. 1 (2015).