The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions
Open accessAbstract
Gaps in digital accessible information (DAI) on species distributions hamper prospects of safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services, and addressing central ecological and evolutionary questions. Achieving international targets on biodiversity knowledge requires that information gaps be identified and actions prioritized. Integrating 157 million point records and distribution maps for 21,170 terrestrial vertebrate species, we find that outside a few well-sampled regions, DAI on point occurrences provides very limited and spatially biased inventories of species. Surprisingly, many large, emerging economies are even more under-represented in global DAI than species-rich, developing countries in the tropics. Multi-model inference reveals that completeness is mainly limited by distance to researchers, locally available research funding and participation in data-sharing networks, rather than transportation infrastructure, or size and funding of Western data contributors as often assumed. Our results highlight the urgent need for integrating non-Western data sources and intensifying cooperation to more effectively address societal biodiversity information needs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Leadley, P. W., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257484 · Cited by 1,227
Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Bias in Species Occurrence Data
Boakes, E. H., McGowan, P. J. K., Fuller, R. A., Chang-qing, D., Clark, N. E., O'Connor, K., & Mace, G. M. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385 · Cited by 824
Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation
Hurlbert, A. H., & Jetz, W. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704469104 · Cited by 710
Self-citationTargeting global conservation funding to limit immediate biodiversity declines
Waldron, A., Mooers, A. O., Miller, D. C., Nibbelink, N., Redding, D., Kuhn, T. S., Roberts, J. T., & Gittleman, J. L. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1221370110 · Cited by 625
The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring
Collen, B., Ram, M., Zamin, T., & McRae, L. (2008) · Tropical Conservation Science · doi:10.1177/194008290800100202 · Cited by 327
Beck, J., Ballesteros‐Mejia, L., Nagel, P., & Kitching, I. J. (2013) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/ddi.12083 · Cited by 157
Cited by
Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity
Hortal, J., de Bello, F., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Lewinsohn, T. M., Lobo, J. M., & Ladle, R. J. (2015) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054400 · Cited by 1,743
Upham, N. S., Esselstyn, J. A., & Jetz, W. (2019) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000494 · Cited by 1,201
Self-citationThe projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change
Trisos, C. H., Merow, C., & Pigot, A. L. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9 · Cited by 745
Global rise in emerging alien species results from increased accessibility of new source pools
Seebens, H., Blackburn, T. M., Dyer, E. E., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. M., Pagad, S., Pyšek, P., van Kleunen, M., Winter, M., et al. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1719429115 · Cited by 692
Jetz, W., & Pyron, R. A. (2018) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0515-5 · Cited by 607
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Meyer, C., Kreft, H., Guralnick, R., & Jetz, W.
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Published
- 2015-09-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 8221-8221
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1943176044
- Cited by
- 595
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 16.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
