Jakob Thyrring, Lloyd S. Peck, Mikael K. Sejr, Jan Marcin Węsławski, Christopher D. G. Harley, André Menegotto
{"title":"Shallow coverage in shallow waters: the incompleteness of intertidal species inventories in biodiversity database records","authors":"Jakob Thyrring, Lloyd S. Peck, Mikael K. Sejr, Jan Marcin Węsławski, Christopher D. G. Harley, André Menegotto","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The availability of online biodiversity data has increased in recent decades, aiding our understanding of diversity patterns and species richness–environment relationships across temporal and spatial scales. However, even the most exhaustive databases are prone to sampling biases, which create knowledge gaps in species distributions and increase uncertainty in model predictions. Regarding marine environments, intertidal zones are globally distributed and considered early warning systems for climate change impacts and species' range shifts. Owing to their relative accessibility, intertidal records should – supposedly – be less incomplete and biased compared to open-ocean and deep-sea areas. Yet, the extent and coverage of intertidal records available in global biodiversity databases remains unknown. In this study, we used a high-resolution worldwide tidal flat map to identify intertidal records of 11 563 benthic species from the OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System) portal. Following a thorough data-cleaning process, we evaluated geographic patterns in observed species richness, site accessibility, sampling effort, and inventory completeness across latitudes. We demonstrate that observed species richness has mid-latitudinal peaks while the tropics accumulate species with missing records, similar to patterns described for the entire marine realm. These patterns correlate with disproportionate mid-latitude sampling efforts and poor tropical sampling coverage. Sixty-five percent of the mapped intertidal sites are located within 3 hours of a city, but sampling records remain almost absent along African Atlantic, South American Pacific, and Indo-Pacific coasts. Thus, even for the accessible and well-studied intertidal shorelines, database records are not free from geographical biases and their associated implications for biodiversity estimates. Our results highlight the need for a better data-sharing culture, and we hope to encourage initiatives promoting more and better-distributed research efforts on intertidal biodiversity, which could improve global scale detection and prediction of climate change impacts at regional and global scales.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The availability of online biodiversity data has increased in recent decades, aiding our understanding of diversity patterns and species richness–environment relationships across temporal and spatial scales. However, even the most exhaustive databases are prone to sampling biases, which create knowledge gaps in species distributions and increase uncertainty in model predictions. Regarding marine environments, intertidal zones are globally distributed and considered early warning systems for climate change impacts and species' range shifts. Owing to their relative accessibility, intertidal records should – supposedly – be less incomplete and biased compared to open-ocean and deep-sea areas. Yet, the extent and coverage of intertidal records available in global biodiversity databases remains unknown. In this study, we used a high-resolution worldwide tidal flat map to identify intertidal records of 11 563 benthic species from the OBIS (Ocean Biodiversity Information System) portal. Following a thorough data-cleaning process, we evaluated geographic patterns in observed species richness, site accessibility, sampling effort, and inventory completeness across latitudes. We demonstrate that observed species richness has mid-latitudinal peaks while the tropics accumulate species with missing records, similar to patterns described for the entire marine realm. These patterns correlate with disproportionate mid-latitude sampling efforts and poor tropical sampling coverage. Sixty-five percent of the mapped intertidal sites are located within 3 hours of a city, but sampling records remain almost absent along African Atlantic, South American Pacific, and Indo-Pacific coasts. Thus, even for the accessible and well-studied intertidal shorelines, database records are not free from geographical biases and their associated implications for biodiversity estimates. Our results highlight the need for a better data-sharing culture, and we hope to encourage initiatives promoting more and better-distributed research efforts on intertidal biodiversity, which could improve global scale detection and prediction of climate change impacts at regional and global scales.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.