2016
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2225
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open‐access biodiversity databases in the United States

Abstract: Primary biodiversity data constitute observations of particular species at given points in time and space. Open‐access electronic databases provide unprecedented access to these data, but their usefulness in characterizing species distributions and patterns in biodiversity depend on how complete species inventories are at a given survey location and how uniformly distributed survey locations are along dimensions of time, space, and environment. Our aim was to compare completeness and coverage among three open‐… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
76
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(79 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(189 reference statements)
2
76
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…upstream migration, downstream drift, growth and survival of ichthyoplankton, juveniles and adults) should be monitored across political boundaries, as suggested for other taxa (Pracheil, Pegg, Powell & Mestl, ). However, our ability to detect trends is hindered by differences in survey methods, different geographical and taxonomic biases, and recording errors in the data (Troia & McManamay, , personal observation). In addition, many such data sets are stored in disparate locations requiring time‐consuming organization and validation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…upstream migration, downstream drift, growth and survival of ichthyoplankton, juveniles and adults) should be monitored across political boundaries, as suggested for other taxa (Pracheil, Pegg, Powell & Mestl, ). However, our ability to detect trends is hindered by differences in survey methods, different geographical and taxonomic biases, and recording errors in the data (Troia & McManamay, , personal observation). In addition, many such data sets are stored in disparate locations requiring time‐consuming organization and validation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used this taxon because crayfish are widely distributed, economically important, and many species are currently vulnerable to extinction, making them the seventh most threatened group in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, ; Richman et al, ). Many species in this group also do not have sufficient distribution data to model future range changes (Troja & McManamay, ), therefore making them a suitable example taxon for TVA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…List (IUCN, 2018;Richman et al, 2015). Many species in this group also do not have sufficient distribution data to model future range changes (Troja & McManamay, 2016), therefore making them a suitable example taxon for TVA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, sites within catchments are generally lumped together to assess ‘system‐wide’ or ‘reach‐scale’ change, generally because of sample size limitations associated with analysis (Perkin & Bonner, ; Taylor, Millican, Roberts, & Slack, ). The increasing prevalence of spatial datasets (Troia & McManamay, ) means that future opportunities for spatially explicit comparisons will exist. Given the rise of spatially structured data (Troia & McManamay, ) and continued integration of landscape ecology into stream fish conservation and community ecology (Fausch et al, ), the development of analytical frameworks for assessing spatially structured historical change holds potential for advancing stream fish conservation (Fausch, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, sites within catchments are generally lumped together to assess 'system-wide' or 'reach-scale' change, generally because of sample size limitations associated with analysis (Perkin & Bonner, 2016;Taylor, Millican, Roberts, & Slack, 2008). The increasing prevalence of spatial datasets (Troia & McManamay, 2016) means that future opportunities for spatially explicit comparisons will exist.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%