Suggested readings on gaps and biases in GBIF-mediated data

The topic for this year's Challenge builds in part on the growing body of research that highlights various geographic, taxonomic, temporal, habitat and other gaps and biases in GBIF-mediated data.

The chronological list of papers below represents a common knowledge base for those interested in entering the challenge. We also strongly encourage entrants to review the recent GBIF Best Practice Guide for Data Gap Analysis for biodiversity stakeholders.

Suggested readings

Amano T, Lamming JDL & Sutherland WJ (2016) Spatial Gaps in Global Biodiversity Information and the Role of Citizen Science. BioScience 66(5): 393-400. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw022

JC Ganglo & SB Kakpo (2016) Completeness of Digital Accessible Knowledge of Plants of Benin and Priorities for Future Inventory and Data Discovery. Biodiversity Informatics 11: 23-39. doi:10.17161/bi.v11i0.5053

Mair L & Ruete A (2016) Explaining Spatial Variation in the Recording Effort of Citizen Science Data across Multiple Taxa. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0147796. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147796

Meyer C, Weigelt P & Kreft H (2016) Multidimensional biases, gaps and uncertainties in global plant occurrence information. Ecology Letters. doi:10.1111/ele.12624

Meyer C, Jetz W, Guralnick RP, Fritz SA, Kreft H (2016), Range geometry and socio-economics dominate species-level biases in occurrence information. Global Ecology and Biogeography. doi:10.1111/geb.12483

Orlikowska EH, Roberge JM, Blicharska M & Mikusiński G (2016) Gaps in ecological research on the world's largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: A review of Natura 2000. Biological Conservation 200: 216-227. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.015

Stropp J, Ladle RJ, Malhado ACM, Hortal J, Gaffuri J, Temperley WH, Olav Skøien J & Mayaux P (2016), Mapping ignorance: 300 years of collecting flowering plants in Africa. Global Ecology and Biogeography. doi:10.1111/geb.12468

Troia MJ & McManamay RA (2016) Filling in the GAPS: evaluating completeness and coverage of open-access biodiversity databases in the United States. Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1002/ece3.2225

Boakes EH, Fuller RA, McGowan PJK & Mace GM (2015) Uncertainty in identifying local extinctions: the distribution of missing data and its effects on biodiversity measures. Biology Letters 12(3): 20150824. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2015.0824

Meyer, C, Kreft H, Guralnick R & Jetz W (2015) Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nature Communications 6: 8221. doi:10.1038/ncomms9221

Rubio Teso ML, Ronquillo Ferrero C, Nebreda Trejo A, Parra Quijano M, Torres Lamas E & Iriondo Alegría JM (2015) In situ conservation of CWR in Spain: present and future. Crop Wild Relative 10: 24-26.

Pino-Del-Carpio A, Ariño, AH, Villarroya A, Puig J & Miranda R (2014) The biodiversity data knowledge gap: Assessing information loss in the management of Biosphere Reserves. Biological Conservation 173: 74-79. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.020

Wetzel F, Hoffmann A, Kroupa A et al. (2014) EU BON Deliverable 1.1: Gap analysis and priorities for filling identified gaps in data coverage and quality. Berlin: Museum für Naturkunde and Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science.

Gaiji S, Chavan VS, Ariño AS, Otegui J, Hobern D, Sood R & Robles E (2013) Content assessment of the primary biodiversity data published through GBIF network: Status, challenges and potential. Biodiversity Informatics 8: 94-172. doi:10.17161/bi.v8i2.4124

Otegui J, Ariño AH, Encinas MA & Pando F (2013) Assessing the primary data hosted by the Spanish node of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). PLoS ONE 8(1): e55144. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055144

Sousa-Baena MS, Couto Garcia L & Peterson AT (2013) Completeness of digital accessible knowledge of the plants of Brazil and priorities for survey and inventory. Diversity and Distributions 20(4): 369-381. doi:10.1111/ddi.12136

Chavan VS, Gaiji S, Hahn A, Sood RK, Raymond M & King N (2010) State-of-the-Network 2010: Discovery and Publishing of Primary Biodiversity Data through the GBIF Network. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility

Hill AW, Otegui J, Ariño AH & Guralnick RP (2010) GBIF position paper on future directions and recommendations for enhancing fitness-for-use across the GBIF Network, Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

Jarvis A, Ramírez J, Reymondin L, Amariles D, Tobón H, Camacho J & Tello JJ. (2010) Providing means for a better understanding of biodiversity: Improving primary data and using it for threat assessment and in situ conservation planning in South America. Cali, Colombia: International Centre for Tropical Agriculture.

Ariño AH & Otegui J (2009) Meta-análisis de los datos de biodiversidad suministrados a través de, Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra.

Koleff P, Tambutti M, March IJ, Esquivel R, Cantú C, Lira-Noriega A et al. (2009) Identificación de prioridades y análisis de vacíos y omisiones en la conservación de la biodiversidad de México. In Capital natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio. Mexico City: CONABIO, 651-718.

Collen B, Ram M, Zamin T & McRae L (2008) The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring. Tropical Conservation Science 1(2): 75-88.

Peterson AT, Navarro-Sigüenza AG & Benítez-Díaz H (2008) The need for continued scientific collecting: A geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens. Ibis 140(2): 288-294. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1998.tb04391.x

Guralnick RP, Hill A & Lane M (2007) Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecology Letters 10(8): 663-72. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01063.x

Condé S, Roekaerts M, Vignault MP & Richard D (1996) Databases on species, habitats and sites: Survey and analysis, 1995-96. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

Soberón J, Llorente J & Benítez H (1996) An international view of national biological surveys. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83(4): 562–573. doi:10.2307/2399997