Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open‐access biodiversity databases in the United States

Matthew J. Troia; Ryan A. McManamay

doi:10.1002/ece3.2225

journal article Open Access Jun 12, 2016

Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open‐access biodiversity databases in the United States

Matthew J. Troia Ryan A. McManamay

Ecology and Evolution Vol. 6 No. 14 pp. 4654-4669 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/ece3.2225

Abstract

AbstractPrimary biodiversity data constitute observations of particular species at given points in time and space. Open‐access electronic databases provide unprecedented access to these data, but their usefulness in characterizing species distributions and patterns in biodiversity depend on how complete species inventories are at a given survey location and how uniformly distributed survey locations are along dimensions of time, space, and environment. Our aim was to compare completeness and coverage among three open‐access databases representing ten taxonomic groups (amphibians, birds, freshwater bivalves, crayfish, freshwater fish, fungi, insects, mammals, plants, and reptiles) in the contiguous United States. We compiled occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and federally administered fish surveys (FFS). We aggregated occurrence records by 0.1° × 0.1° grid cells and computed three completeness metrics to classify each grid cell as well‐surveyed or not. Next, we compared frequency distributions of surveyed grid cells to background environmental conditions in a GIS and performed Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests to quantify coverage through time, along two spatial gradients, and along eight environmental gradients. The three databases contributed >13.6 million reliable occurrence records distributed among >190,000 grid cells. The percent of well‐surveyed grid cells was substantially lower for GBIF (5.2%) than for systematic surveys (BBS and FFS; 82.5%). Still, the large number of GBIF occurrence records produced at least 250 well‐surveyed grid cells for six of nine taxonomic groups. Coverages of systematic surveys were less biased across spatial and environmental dimensions but were more biased in temporal coverage compared to GBIF data. GBIF coverages also varied among taxonomic groups, consistent with commonly recognized geographic, environmental, and institutional sampling biases. This comprehensive assessment of biodiversity data across the contiguous United States provides a prioritization scheme to fill in the gaps by contributing existing occurrence records to the public domain and planning future surveys.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

74

[1]

10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00331.x

[2]

Bates B. C. Z. W.Kundzewicz S.Wu andJ.Palutikof.2008.Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC Secretariat Geneva.

[3]

10.1111/ddi.12083

[4]

10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0227:hioepa]2.0.co;2

[5]

10.1016/j.baae.2010.09.007

[6]

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01060.x

[7]

Brown J. H. (1995)

[8]

Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation

Robert K. Colwell, Jonathan A. Coddington

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:... 10.1098/rstb.1994.0091

[9]

Estimating the Population Size for Capture-Recapture Data with Unequal Catchability

Anne Chao

Biometrics 10.2307/2531532

[10]

Coverage‐based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size

Anne Chao, Lou Jost

Ecology 10.1890/11-1952.1

[11]

10.1046/j.1365-2699.1999.00148.x

[12]

10.1023/a:1009690919835

[13]

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00588.x

[14]

Interoperability of Biodiversity Databases: Biodiversity Information on Every Desktop

James L. Edwards, Meredith A. Lane, Ebbe S. Nielsen

Science 10.1126/science.289.5488.2312

[15]

10.3368/er.29.1-2.133

[16]

10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00520.x

[17]

10.1111/geb.12260

[18]

Gilliom R. J. (1995)

[19]

10.1007/s10530-007-9154-5

[20]

10.1371/journal.pone.0008320

[21]

Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models

Antoine Guisan, Wilfried Thuiller

Ecology Letters 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x

[22]

10.1017/cbo9781139048217

[23]

Herlihy A. T. (2006)

[24]

Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas

ROBERT J. HIJMANS, Susan E. Cameron, Juan L. Parra et al.

International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.1276

[25]

10.1007/s10531-004-0224-z

[26]

10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01048.x

[27]

10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00686.x

[28]

10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16434.x

[29]

Seven Shortfalls that Beset Large-Scale Knowledge of Biodiversity

Joaquín Hortal, Francesco de Bello, José Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho et al.

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systemati... 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054400

[30]

10.17161/bi.v10i2.4914

[31]

10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01963.x

[32]

10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0853:asaofa]2.0.co;2

[33]

EFFECT OF ROADSIDE BIAS ON THE ACCURACY OF PREDICTIVE MAPS PRODUCED BY BIOCLIMATIC MODELS

RONEN KADMON, Oren Farber, Avinoam Danin

Ecological Applications 10.1890/02-5364

[34]

10.2307/2412053

[35]

10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01893.x

[36]

Ladle R. "Mapping species distributions: living with uncertainty" Frontiers of Biogeography (2013) 10.21425/f55112942

[37]

10.1007/s10531-008-9333-4

[38]

10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00211.x

[39]

10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01779.x

[40]

Lomolino M.V.H. andR.Lawrence.2004.Frontiers of biogeography: new directions in the geography of nature (No. 578.09 F7).

[41]

10.1038/ncomms9221

[42]

10.1890/11-0370.1

[43]

10.1007/s10530-008-9352-9

[44]

10.1007/s10531-006-9108-8

[45]

10.1038/nature14324

[46]

Oksanen J. R.Kindt P.Legendre B.O'Hara M. H. H.Stevens M. J.Oksanen andMASS.2007.The vegan package.Community ecology package 10.

[47]

Pardieck K.L. D.J.Ziolkowski andM‐A.R.Hudson.2014.North American Breeding Bird Survey Dataset 1966 ‐ 2013 version 2013.0. U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Available atwww.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/RawData/.

[48]

10.1016/j.tree.2007.11.005

[49]

10.1111/ddi.12271

[50]

Transferability and model evaluation in ecological niche modeling: a comparison of GARP and Maxent

A. Townsend Peterson, Monica Papeş, Muir Eaton

Ecography 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.05102.x

Showing 50 of 74 references

Cited By

102

Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences

Julien Troudet, Philippe Grandcolas · 2017

Scientific Reports

Metrics

102

Citations

74

References

Details

Published: Jun 12, 2016
Vol/Issue: 6(14)
Pages: 4654-4669
License: View

Authors

M

Matthew J. Troia

Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge Tennessee 7831

R

Ryan A. McManamay

Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge Tennessee 7831

Funding

United States Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and Water Power Technologies Program

Cite This Article

Matthew J. Troia, Ryan A. McManamay (2016). Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open‐access biodiversity databases in the United States. Ecology and Evolution, 6(14), 4654-4669. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2225

Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open‐access biodiversity databases in the United States

You May Also Like