The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial Gaps in Global Biodiversity Information and the Role of Citizen Science
Open accessAbstract
Because of a range of constraints, the availability of biodiversity-related information varies considerably over space, time, taxa, and types of data, thereby causing gaps in knowledge. Despite growing awareness of this issue among scientists, it is still poorly known how—and whether—scientific efforts have contributed to overcoming these information gaps. Focusing on spatial gaps in global biodiversity data, we show that the accumulation rates of nonbird species occurrence records stored in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility have not improved—and have even potentially declined—over the past three decades in data-poor, often biodiversity-rich regions. Meanwhile, one citizen-science project, eBird, has been making a considerable contribution to the collection and sharing of bird records, even in the data-poorest countries, and is accelerating the accumulation of bird records globally. We discuss the potentials and limitations of citizen-science projects for tackling gaps in biodiversity information, particularly from the perspective of biodiversity conservation.
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
The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection
Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., Raven, P. H., Roberts, C. M., & Sexton, J. O. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1246752 · Cited by 3,542 · cited 3×
“For example, 31 the unequal distribution of biodiversity data across the globe, particularly the lack of 32 information in biodiversity-rich regions, has repeatedly been reported since the 1980s 33 (Western et al. 1989, Amano and Sutherland 2013, Pimm et al. 2014).”
BackgroundMethodDistorted 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
Predicting the conservation status of data-deficient species
Bland, L. M., Collen, B., Orme, C. D. L., & Bielby, J. (2015) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12372 · Cited by 364
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
Cited by
A communal catalogue reveals Earth's multiscale microbial diversity
Thompson, L. R., Sanders, J. G., McDonald, D., Amir, A., Ladau, J., Locey, K. J., Prill, R. J., Tripathi, A., Gibbons, S. M., Ackermann, G., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature24621 · Cited by 2,684
Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences, and implications
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2018) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1794 · Cited by 709
A Vision for Global Biodiversity Monitoring With Citizen Science
(2018) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.06.003 · Cited by 228
Metadata
- Authors
- Amano, T., Lamming, J. D. L., & Sutherland, W. J.
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-03-29
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 393-400
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3244
- OpenAlex
- W2323578810
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Spatial Gaps in Global Biodiversity Information and the Role of Citizen Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biosci/biw022
- The paper
- Amano, T., Lamming, J. D. L., & Sutherland, W. J. (2016). Spatial Gaps in Global Biodiversity Information and the Role of Citizen Science. BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw022
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.