Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world

Hughes, Alice C.; Orr, Michael C.; Ma, Keping; Costello, Mark J.; Waller, John; Provoost, Pieter; Zhu, Chao‐Dong; Qiao, Huije

doi:10.22541/au.159419540.02222358

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To grow these resources further, mechanisms must also be developed to fund taxonomic data verifications and museum data digitization better, also including mandated data sharing for projects receiving this funding (Orr et al, 2021). Such data are more likely to capture less‐accessible areas and rarer species than data generated by citizen scientists, making them invaluable for generating a representative view of the natural world (Hughes et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, accurate and reliable data are rare for most taxonomic groups owing to intense sampling biases (Hughes et al, 2020). As a consequence, IUCN and similar data underlie countless studies, including those on distribution (Buckley & Jetz, 2008; Holt et al., 2013; Rissler & Smith, 2010), climate change (Akcakaya et al, 2006; Sandel et al., 2011; Sekerciuglu et al, 2012) and, especially, conservation (Betts et al., 2017; Brooks et al., 2019; Jenkins et al., 2013, 2015; Jetz et al., 2014; La Saout et al., 2013; Li et al, 2017; Mason et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2015; Moran & Kanemoto, 2017; Ocampo‐Peñuela et al, 2016; Pouzols et al., 2014; Runge et al., 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectively and accurately mapping global biodiversity patterns for different regions and taxa

Hughes

Orr

Yang

et al. 2021

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim was to understand the representativeness and accuracy of expert range maps and to explore alternative methods for mapping species distributions accurately. Location Global. Time period Contemporary. Major taxa studied Terrestrial vertebrates and Odonata. Methods We analysed the biases in 50,768 animal International Union for Conservation of Nature, Global Assessment of Reptile Distributions and BirdLife species maps and assessed the links between these maps and existing political boundaries and various non‐ecological boundaries to assess their accuracy for certain types of analyses. We cross‐referenced each species map with data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to assess whether maps captured the whole range of a species and what percentage of occurrence points fell within the assessed range of the species. In addition, we used a number of different methods to map diversity patterns and compared these with high‐resolution models of distribution patterns. Results On average, 20–30% of the non‐coastal range boundaries of species overlapped with administrative national boundaries. In total, 60% of areas with the highest spatial turnover in species (high densities of species range boundaries marking high levels of shift in the community of species present) occurred at political boundaries, which was especially common in Southeast Asia. Different biases existed for different taxa, with gridded analysis in reptiles, river basins in Odonata (except the Americas) and county boundaries for amphibians in the USA. On average, up to half (25–46%) of the recorded range points of species fell outside their mapped distributions. Filtered minimum convex polygons performed better than expert range maps in reproducing modelled diversity patterns. Main conclusions Expert range maps showed high bias at administrative borders in all taxa, but this was highest at the transition from tropical to subtropical regions. The methods used were inconsistent across space, time and taxa, and the ranges mapped did not match species distribution data. Alternative approaches can reconstruct patterns of distribution better than expert maps, and data‐driven approaches are needed to provide reliable alternatives to gain a better understanding of species distributions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectively and accurately mapping global biodiversity patterns for different regions and taxa

Hughes

Orr

Yang

et al. 2021

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the Darwin Tree of Life project (https://www.darwintreeoflife.org/) seeks to sequence the genomes of all ~70,000 eukaryotic species living in Britain and Ireland. Still, however, similar to how sampling biases can yield skewed understanding of the natural world in other disciplines (e.g., 19), so too could bias towards specific ecoregions, habitats, or other classifications skew genomic insight. Inherently linked with questions of representation in animal genome science is the specter of parachute science (or helicopter research)-the practice where international scientists, typically from wealthy nations, conduct studies in other countries that are often poorer without meaningful communication nor collaborations with local people (20).…”

Section: Global Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a genome sequence for every animal: where are we now?

Hotaling

Kelley

Frandsen

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In less than 25 years, the field of animal genome science has transformed from a discipline seeking its first glimpses into genome sequences across the Tree of Life to a global enterprise with ambitions to sequence genomes for all of Earth's eukaryotic diversity (1). As the field rapidly moves forward, it is important to take stock of the progress that has been made to best inform the discipline's future. In this perspective, we provide a contemporary, quantitative perspective on animal genome sequencing. We identified the best available genome assemblies on GenBank, the world's most extensive genetic database, for 3,278 unique animals across 24 phyla. We assessed taxonomic representation, assembly quality, and annotation status for major clades. We show that while tremendous taxonomic progress has occurred, stark disparities in genomic representation exist, highlighted by a systemic overrepresentation of vertebrates and underrepresentation of arthropods. In terms of assembly quality, long-read sequencing has dramatically improved contiguity and, on average, gene annotations are available for just 34.3% of taxa. Furthermore, we show that animal genome science has diversified in recent years with an ever-expanding pool of researchers participating. However, the field still appears to be dominated by institutions in the Global North, which have been listed as the submitting institution for 77% of all assemblies. We conclude by offering recommendations for how we can collectively improve genomic resource availability and value while also broadening representation worldwide.

show abstract

“…Even though an unknown number of species remain to be described and there are inevitable differences in the knowledge of biodiversity among regions that could bias our results (Hughes et al, 2021;Meiri, 2016), we included the most recent available data on reptile distributions, finding the overall same diversity patterns that have been reported for decades.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Desert lizard diversity worldwide: effects of environment, time, and evolutionary rate

Tejero‐Cicuéndez

Tarroso

Carranza

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity is not uniformly distributed across the Earth's surface, even among physiographically comparable biomes in different biogeographic regions. For lizards, the world's large desert regions are characterized by extreme heterogeneity in species richness, spanning some of the most species-rich (arid Australia) and species-poor (central Asia) biomes overall. Regional differences in species diversity may arise as a consequence of the interplay of several factors (e.g., evolutionary time, diversification rate, environment), but their relative importance for biogeographic patterns remains poorly known. Here we use distributional and phylogenetic data to assess the evolutionary and ecological drivers of large-scale variation in desert lizard diversity. We specifically test whether diversity patterns are best explained by differences in the ages of arid-adapted lineages (evolutionary time hypothesis), by regional variation in speciation rate, by geographic area of the arid systems, and by spatial variation related to environment (climate, topography, and productivity). We found no effect of recent speciation rate and geographic area on differences in desert lizard diversity. We demonstrate that the extreme species richness of the Australian deserts cannot be explained by greater evolutionary time, because species began accumulating more recently there than in more species-poor arid regions. We find limited support for relationships between regional lizard richness and environmental variables, especially temperature, but these effects were inconsistent across deserts. Our results provide evidence against several classic hypotheses for interregional variation in species richness, but also highlight the complexity of processes underlying vertebrate community richness in the world's great arid systems.

show abstract

Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Effectively and accurately mapping global biodiversity patterns for different regions and taxa

Effectively and accurately mapping global biodiversity patterns for different regions and taxa

Towards a genome sequence for every animal: where are we now?

Desert lizard diversity worldwide: effects of environment, time, and evolutionary rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About