Location biases in ecological research on Australian terrestrial reptiles

被引:13
作者
Piccolo, Renee Louise [1 ]
Warnken, Jan [1 ,3 ]
Chauvenet, Alienor Louise Marie [1 ,2 ]
Castley, James Guy [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Griffith Univ, Sch Environm & Sci, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia
[2] Griffith Univ, Environm Futures Res Inst, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia
[3] Griffith Univ, Australian Rivers Inst, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia
关键词
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES; SAMPLING BIAS; PREDICTION; RICHNESS; MODELS; GAPS;
D O I
10.1038/s41598-020-66719-x
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Understanding geographical biases in ecological research is important for conservation, planning, prioritisation and management. However, conservation efforts may be limited by data availability and poor understanding of the nature of potential spatial bias. We conduct the first continent-wide analysis of spatial bias associated with Australian terrestrial reptile ecological research. To evaluate potential research deficiencies, we used Maxent modelling to predict the distributions of 646 reptile studies published from 1972 to 2017. Based on existing distributions of 1631 individual reptile study locations, reptile species richness, proximity to universities, human footprint and location of protected areas, we found the strongest predictor of reptile research locations was proximity to universities (40.8%). This was followed by species richness (22.9%) and human footprint (20.1%), while protected areas were the weakest predictor (16.2%). These results highlight that research effort is driven largely by accessibility and we consequently identify potential target areas for future research that can be optimised to ensure adequate representation of reptile communities.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Baldwin R. F., 2019, EMERGING PARADIGMS B
  • [2] Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands
    Baldwin, Robert F.
    Leonard, Paul B.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (10):
  • [3] A spatial mismatch between invader impacts and research publications
    Bellard, C.
    Jeschke, J. M.
    [J]. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2016, 30 (01) : 230 - 232
  • [4] Bivand R., 2019, PACKAGE RGEOS
  • [5] Overcoming data deficiency in reptiles
    Bland, Lucie M.
    Bohm, Monika
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2016, 204 : 16 - 22
  • [6] Taxonomic chauvinism
    Bonnet, X
    Shine, R
    Lourdais, O
    [J]. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2002, 17 (01) : 1 - 3
  • [7] Species appeal predicts conservation status
    Brambilla, Mattia
    Gustin, Marco
    Celada, Claudio
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2013, 160 : 209 - 213
  • [8] The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring
    Collen, Ben
    Ram, Mala
    Zamin, Tara
    McRae, Louise
    [J]. TROPICAL CONSERVATION SCIENCE, 2008, 1 (02): : 75 - 88
  • [9] Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization
    Daru, Barnabas H.
    Park, Daniel S.
    Primack, Richard B.
    Willis, Charles G.
    Barrington, David S.
    Whitfeld, Timothy J. S.
    Seidler, Tristram G.
    Sweeney, Patrick W.
    Foster, David R.
    Ellison, Aaron M.
    Davis, Charles C.
    [J]. NEW PHYTOLOGIST, 2018, 217 (02) : 939 - 955
  • [10] Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk
    Di Marco, Moreno
    Venter, Oscar
    Possingham, Hugh P.
    Watson, James E. M.
    [J]. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, 2018, 9