Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Building essential biodiversity variables (EBV s) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale

Open access
Kissling, W. Daniel, Ahumada, Jorge A., Bowser, Anne, Fernandez, Miguel, Fernández, Néstor, García, Enrique Alonso, Guralnick, Robert P., Isaac, Nick J. B., Kelling, Steve, Los, Wouter, McRae, Louise, Mihoub, Jean‐Baptiste, Obst, Matthias, Santamaria, Monica, Skidmore, Andrew K., Williams, Kristen J., Agosti, Donat, Amariles, Daniel, Arvanitidis, Christos, Bastin, Lucy, De Leo, Francesca, Egloff, Willi, Elith, Jane, Hobern, Donald, Martin, David, Pereira, Henrique M., Pesole, Graziano, Peterseil, Johannes, Saarenmaa, Hannu, Schigel, Dmitry, Schmeller, Dirk S., Segata, Nicola, Turak, Eren, Uhlir, Paul F., Wee, Brian, Hardisty, Alex R.·2018·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Much biodiversity data is collected worldwide, but it remains challenging to assemble the scattered knowledge for assessing biodiversity status and trends. The concept of E ssential B iodiversity V ariables (EBV s) was introduced to structure biodiversity monitoring globally, and to harmonize and standardize biodiversity data from disparate sources to capture a minimum set of critical variables required to study, report and manage biodiversity change. Here, we assess the challenges of a ‘B ig D ata’ approach to building global EBV data products across taxa and spatiotemporal scales, focusing on species distribution and abundance. The majority of currently available data on species distributions derives from incidentally reported observations or from surveys where presence‐only or presence–absence data are sampled repeatedly with standardized protocols. Most abundance data come from opportunistic population counts or from population time series using standardized protocols (e.g. repeated surveys of the same population from single or multiple sites). Enormous complexity exists in integrating these heterogeneous, multi‐source data sets across space, time, taxa and different sampling methods. Integration of such data into global EBV data products requires correcting biases introduced by imperfect detection and varying sampling effort, dealing with different spatial resolution and extents, harmonizing measurement units from different data sources or sampling methods, applying statistical tools and models for spatial inter‐ or extrapolation, and quantifying sources of uncertainty and errors in data and models. To support the development of EBV s by the G roup on E arth O bservations B iodiversity O bservation N etwork (GEO BON), we identify 11 key workflow steps that will operationalize the process of building EBV data products within and across research infrastructures worldwide. These workflow steps take multiple sequential activities into account, including identification and aggregation of various raw data sources, data quality control, taxonomic name matching and statistical modelling of integrated data. We illustrate these steps with concrete examples from existing citizen science and professional monitoring projects, including e B ird, the T ropical E cology A ssessment and M onitoring network, the L iving P lanet I ndex and the B altic S ea zooplankton monitoring. The identified workflow steps are applicable to both terrestrial and aquatic systems and a broad range of spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales. They depend on clear, findable and accessible metadata, and we provide an overview of current data and metadata standards. Several challenges remain to be solved for building global EBV data products: (i) developing tools and models for combining heterogeneous, multi‐source data sets and filling data gaps in geographic, temporal and taxonomic coverage, (ii) integrating emerging methods and technologies for data collection such as citizen science, sensor networks, DNA‐based techniques and satellite remote sensing, (iii) solving major technical issues related to data product structure, data storage, execution of workflows and the production process/cycle as well as approaching technical interoperability among research infrastructures, (iv) allowing semantic interoperability by developing and adopting standards and tools for capturing consistent data and metadata, and (v) ensuring legal interoperability by endorsing open data or data that are free from restrictions on use, modification and sharing. Addressing these challenges is critical for biodiversity research and for assessing progress towards conservation policy targets and sustainable development goals.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12359

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Kissling, W. D., Ahumada, J. A., Bowser, A., Fernandez, M., Fernández, N., García, E. A., Guralnick, R. P., Isaac, N. J. B., Kelling, S., Los, W., McRae, L., Mihoub, J., Obst, M., Santamaria, M., Skidmore, A. K., Williams, K. J., Agosti, D., Amariles, D., Arvanitidis, C., Bastin, L., De Leo, F., Egloff, W., Elith, J., Hobern, D., Martin, D., Pereira, H. M., Pesole, G., Peterseil, J., Saarenmaa, H., Schigel, D., Schmeller, D. S., Segata, N., Turak, E., Uhlir, P. F., Wee, B., & Hardisty, A. R.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-08-02
Volume
93
Issue
1
Pages
600-625
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W2739663224
Cited by
314
References
12
FWCI
2.27
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

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.