Mass production of unvouchered records fails to represent global biodiversity patterns
Mass production of unvouchered records fails to represent global biodiversity patterns
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41559-023-02047-3
复制
发表时间：
2023-05-01
影响因子：
16.8
通讯作者：
Rodriguez, Jordan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Daru, Barnabas H.;Rodriguez, Jordan
对来自原始凭证标本或直接观察（包括公民科学数据）的近 20 亿条陆地动植物发生记录的询问，揭示了它们对全球生物多样性模式覆盖范围的差异。即使在地球上非常偏远的地方，不断增加的人类足迹也激发了人们努力记录生物多样性，以防生物灭绝。然而，通常收集的数据要么来自自然历史收藏中的主要凭证标本，要么来自无法追溯到博物馆或植物标本室中有形材料的直接现场观察。尽管这两个数据集对于评估人为驱动因素如何影响生物多样性至关重要，但它们存在广泛的覆盖范围差距和偏差，可能导致它们在代表生物多样性模式方面效率低下。我们使用包含约 19 亿条陆地植物、蝴蝶、两栖动物、鸟类、爬行动物和哺乳动物发生记录的大型全球数据集，通过凭证和观测记录来量化预期生物多样性模式的覆盖范围和偏差。我们表明，观测记录的大规模生产并不会导致预期生物多样性模式的更高覆盖率，而是不成比例地偏向某些区域、进化枝、功能特征和时间段。这种覆盖模式是由空中和地面交通的便利性、安全水平以及每个采样点的人为改造程度驱动的。相反，凭证记录在发生数据中极为罕见，但在少数采样地点，显示出与所有维度的预期生物多样性模式相对一致。凭证和观测记录的覆盖范围和偏差的差异对于这些记录在生态学、进化和保护研究中的效用具有重要影响。
An interrogation of almost 2 billion occurrence records for terrestrial plants and animals derived from either primary voucher specimens or direct observations, including citizen-science data, reveals differences in their coverage of global biodiversity patterns.The ever-increasing human footprint even in very remote places on Earth has inspired efforts to document biodiversity vigorously in case organisms go extinct. However, the data commonly gathered come from either primary voucher specimens in a natural history collection or from direct field observations that are not traceable to tangible material in a museum or herbarium. Although both datasets are crucial for assessing how anthropogenic drivers affect biodiversity, they have widespread coverage gaps and biases that may render them inefficient in representing patterns of biodiversity. Using a large global dataset of around 1.9 billion occurrence records of terrestrial plants, butterflies, amphibians, birds, reptiles and mammals, we quantify coverage and biases of expected biodiversity patterns by voucher and observation records. We show that the mass production of observation records does not lead to higher coverage of expected biodiversity patterns but is disproportionately biased toward certain regions, clades, functional traits and time periods. Such coverage patterns are driven by the ease of accessibility to air and ground transportation, level of security and extent of human modification at each sampling site. Conversely, voucher records are vastly infrequent in occurrence data but in the few places where they are sampled, showed relative congruence with expected biodiversity patterns for all dimensions. The differences in coverage and bias by voucher and observation records have important implications on the utility of these records for research in ecology, evolution and conservation research.