ArticleEcology and evolution2017
Temporal degradation of data limits biodiversity research.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subtle changes in plant diversity in the Bavarian Alps over the past eight decades.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Exploring the impact of data curation criteria on the observed geographical distribution of mosses.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- A quixotic view of spatial bias in modelling the distribution of species and their diversity.npj biodiversity · 2023Review
- Prioritizing Colombian plant genetic resources for investment in research using indicators about the geographic origin, vulnerability status, economic benefits, and food security importance.Biodiversity and conservation · 2023Article
- Influence of different data cleaning solutions of point-occurrence records on downstream macroecological diversity models.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Open Data Practices among Users of Primary Biodiversity Data.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Article
- Assessing spatial and temporal biases and gaps in the publicly available distributional information of Iberian mosses.Biodiversity data journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Completeness of Digital Accessible Knowledge (DAK) about terrestrial mammals in the Iberian Peninsula.PloS one · 2019Article
- Visualizing natural history collection data provides insight into collection development and bias.Biodiversity data journal · 2018Article
- Temporal degradation of data limits biodiversity research.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial and/or temporal biases in biodiversity data can directly influence the utility, comparability, and reliability of ecological and evolutionary studies. While the effects of biased spatial coverage of biodiversity data are relatively well known, temporal variation in data quality (i.e., the congruence between recorded and actual information) has received much less attention. Here, we develop a conceptual framework for understanding the influence of time on biodiversity data quality based on three main processes: (1) the natural dynamics of ecological systems-such as species turnover or local extinction; (2) periodic taxonomic revisions, and; (3) the loss of physical and metadata due to inefficient curation, accidents, or funding shortfalls. Temporal decay in data quality driven by these three processes has fundamental consequences for the usage and comparability of data collected in different time periods. Data decay can be partly ameliorated by adopting standard protocols for generation, storage, and sharing data and metadata. However, some data degradation is unavoidable due to natural variations in ecological systems. Consequently, changes in biodiversity data quality over time need be carefully assessed and, if possible, taken into account when analyzing aging datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.