The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences
Open accessAbstract
Studying and protecting each and every living species on Earth is a major challenge of the 21 st century. Yet, most species remain unknown or unstudied, while others attract most of the public, scientific and government attention. Although known to be detrimental, this taxonomic bias continues to be pervasive in the scientific literature, but is still poorly studied and understood. Here, we used 626 million occurrences from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the biggest biodiversity data portal, to characterize the taxonomic bias in biodiversity data. We also investigated how societal preferences and taxonomic research relate to biodiversity data gathering. For each species belonging to 24 taxonomic classes, we used the number of publications from Web of Science and the number of web pages from Bing searches to approximate research activity and societal preferences. Our results show that societal preferences, rather than research activity, strongly correlate with taxonomic bias, which lead us to assert that scientists should advertise less charismatic species and develop societal initiatives (e.g. citizen science) that specifically target neglected organisms. Ensuring that biodiversity is representatively sampled while this is still possible is an urgent prerequisite for achieving efficient conservation plans and a global understanding of our surrounding environment.
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
Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 · Cited by 17,963
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6 · Cited by 16,836
ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis
Wickham, H. (2009) · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 · Cited by 14,447
Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11148 · Cited by 7,457
boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878 · Cited by 5,479
Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09678 · Cited by 4,400
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253 · Cited by 4,220
Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus.
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (1996) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532871 · Cited by 2,994
The Split-Apply-Combine Strategy for Data Analysis
Wickham, H. (2011) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v040.i01 · Cited by 2,705
eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences
Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., Iliff, M. J., Bonney, R. E., Fink, D., & Kelling, S. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006 · Cited by 2,017
Cited by
(2021) · doi:10.1111/ddi.13271 · Cited by 407
Joint Species Distribution Modelling: With Applications in R
Ovaskainen, O., & Abrego, N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108591720 · Cited by 394
Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis
Heberling, J. M., Miller, J. T., Noesgaard, D., Weingart, S. B., & Schigel, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2018093118 · Cited by 380
Digitization and the Future of Natural History Collections
Hedrick, B. P., Heberling, J. M., Meineke, E. K., Turner, K. G., Grassa, C. J., Park, D. S., Kennedy, J., Clarke, J. A., Cook, J. A., Blackburn, D. C., et al. (2020) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biz163 · Cited by 306
How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented?
Bolam, F. C., Mair, L., Angelico, M., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M., Hermes, C., Hoffmann, M., Martin, R. W., McGowan, P. J. K., Rodrigues, A. S. L., et al. (2021) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/conl.12762 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R., & Legendre, F.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2017-08-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9132-9132
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2748579291
- Cited by
- 889
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 91.18
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6
- The paper
- Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R., & Legendre, F. (2017). Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6
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.
