Capability of big data to capture threatened vertebrate diversity in protected areas.

IF 8.3 2区 材料科学 Q1 MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Javier M Cordier, Luis Osorio-Olvera, Pablo Y Huais, Ana N Tomba, Fabricio Villalobos, Javier Nori
{"title":"Capability of big data to capture threatened vertebrate diversity in protected areas.","authors":"Javier M Cordier, Luis Osorio-Olvera, Pablo Y Huais, Ana N Tomba, Fabricio Villalobos, Javier Nori","doi":"10.1111/cobi.14371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Protected areas (PAs) are an essential tool for conservation amid the global biodiversity crisis. Optimizing PAs to represent species at risk of extinction is crucial. Vertebrate representation in PAs is assessed using species distribution databases from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Evaluating and addressing discrepancies and biases in these data sources are vital for effective conservation strategies. Our objective was to gain insights into the potential constraints (e.g., differences and biases) of these global repositories to objectively depict the diversity of threatened vertebrates in the global system of PAs. We assessed differences in species richness (SR) of threatened vertebrates as reported by IUCN and GBIF in PAs globally and then compared how biased this information was with reports from independent sources for a subset of PAs. Both databases showed substantial differences in SR in PAs (t = -62.35, p ≤ 0.001), but differences varied among regions and vertebrate groups. When these results were compared with data from independent assessments, IUCN overestimated SR by 575% on average and GBIF underestimated SR by 63% on average, again with variable results among regions and groups. Our results indicate the need to improve analyses of the representativeness of threatened vertebrates in PAs such that robust and unbiased assessments of PA effectiveness can be conducted. The scientific community and decision makers should consider these regional and taxonomic disparities when using IUCN and GBIF distributional data sources in PA assessment. Overall, supplementing information in these databases could lead to more robust and reliable analyses. Additional efforts to acquire more comprehensive and unbiased data on species distributions to support conservation decisions are clearly needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14371","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are an essential tool for conservation amid the global biodiversity crisis. Optimizing PAs to represent species at risk of extinction is crucial. Vertebrate representation in PAs is assessed using species distribution databases from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Evaluating and addressing discrepancies and biases in these data sources are vital for effective conservation strategies. Our objective was to gain insights into the potential constraints (e.g., differences and biases) of these global repositories to objectively depict the diversity of threatened vertebrates in the global system of PAs. We assessed differences in species richness (SR) of threatened vertebrates as reported by IUCN and GBIF in PAs globally and then compared how biased this information was with reports from independent sources for a subset of PAs. Both databases showed substantial differences in SR in PAs (t = -62.35, p ≤ 0.001), but differences varied among regions and vertebrate groups. When these results were compared with data from independent assessments, IUCN overestimated SR by 575% on average and GBIF underestimated SR by 63% on average, again with variable results among regions and groups. Our results indicate the need to improve analyses of the representativeness of threatened vertebrates in PAs such that robust and unbiased assessments of PA effectiveness can be conducted. The scientific community and decision makers should consider these regional and taxonomic disparities when using IUCN and GBIF distributional data sources in PA assessment. Overall, supplementing information in these databases could lead to more robust and reliable analyses. Additional efforts to acquire more comprehensive and unbiased data on species distributions to support conservation decisions are clearly needed.

大数据捕捉保护区内受威胁脊椎动物多样性的能力。
在全球生物多样性危机中,保护区(PAs)是保护生物多样性的重要工具。优化保护区以代表濒临灭绝的物种至关重要。保护区中脊椎动物的代表性是通过世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)和全球生物多样性信息基金(GBIF)的物种分布数据库进行评估的。评估和解决这些数据源中的差异和偏差对于有效的保护战略至关重要。我们的目标是深入了解这些全球资料库在客观描述全球保护区系统中受威胁脊椎动物多样性方面的潜在限制(如差异和偏差)。我们评估了IUCN和GBIF报告的全球保护区内受威胁脊椎动物物种丰富度(SR)的差异,然后比较了这些信息与独立来源报告的保护区子集的偏差程度。两个数据库都显示保护区内的SR存在巨大差异(t = -62.35,p ≤ 0.001),但不同地区和脊椎动物群之间的差异各不相同。当将这些结果与独立评估的数据进行比较时,世界自然保护联盟平均高估了575%的SR,而GBIF平均低估了63%的SR,同样,不同地区和组别的结果也不尽相同。我们的研究结果表明,有必要改进对保护区中受威胁脊椎动物代表性的分析,以便对保护区的有效性进行可靠和无偏见的评估。当在保护区评估中使用 IUCN 和 GBIF 分布数据源时,科学界和决策者应考虑这些区域和分类差异。总之,对这些数据库中的信息进行补充,可以使分析更加有力和可靠。显然,需要进一步努力获取更全面和无偏见的物种分布数据,以支持保护决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 工程技术-材料科学:综合
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
4978
审稿时长
1.8 months
期刊介绍: ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信