SynthesisPloS one2019
Research applications of primary biodiversity databases in the digital age.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Sampling bias and uneven data coverage shape observed biodiversity patterns in a megadiverse island archipelago hotspot.PloS one · 2026Article
- Globally aggregated biodiversity data impact predictive and descriptive research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- iNaturalist accelerates biodiversity research.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Impact of obscured data on species distribution models.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Ozboneviz: an Australian precedent in FAIR 3D imagery and extended biodiversity collections.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Opening doors to physical sample tracking and attribution in Earth and environmental sciences.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Spatial occurrence records and distributions of tropical Asian butterflies.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Climatic and edaphic niche shifts during plant radiation in the Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot.Annals of botany · 2025Article
- Article
- RevisitingPeerJ · 2025Article
- African bat database: curated data of occurrences, distributions and conservation metrics for sub-Saharan bats.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Data mobilisation at the Fund of Invertebrates of the State Museum of Natural History of the NAS of Ukraine.Biodiversity data journal · 2024Article
- Biodiversity patterns of epipelagic copepods in the South Pacific Ocean: Strengths and limitations of current data bases.PloS one · 2024Article
- How to fill the biodiversity data gap: Is it better to invest in fieldwork or curation?Plant diversity · 2024Article
- Data mobilisation in the LWS Herbarium: success and prospects.Biodiversity data journal · 2024Article
- Fisheries data management systems in the NW Mediterranean: from data collection to web visualization.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023Article
- cnfishbase: A cyber Chinese fish database.Zoological research · 2023Article
- The Afrotropical breeding grounds of the Palearctic-African migratory painted lady butterflies (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Species catalogue ofPeerJ · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our world is in the midst of unprecedented change-climate shifts and sustained, widespread habitat degradation have led to dramatic declines in biodiversity rivaling historical extinction events. At the same time, new approaches to publishing and integrating previously disconnected data resources promise to help provide the evidence needed for more efficient and effective conservation and management. Stakeholders have invested considerable resources to contribute to online databases of species occurrences. However, estimates suggest that only 10% of biocollections are available in digital form. The biocollections community must therefore continue to promote digitization efforts, which in part requires demonstrating compelling applications of the data. Our overarching goal is therefore to determine trends in use of mobilized species occurrence data since 2010, as online systems have grown and now provide over one billion records. To do this, we characterized 501 papers that use openly accessible biodiversity databases. Our standardized tagging protocol was based on key topics of interest, including: database(s) used, taxa addressed, general uses of data, other data types linked to species occurrence data, and data quality issues addressed. We found that the most common uses of online biodiversity databases have been to estimate species distribution and richness, to outline data compilation and publication, and to assist in developing species checklists or describing new species. Only 69% of papers in our dataset addressed one or more aspects of data quality, which is low considering common errors and biases known to exist in opportunistic datasets. Globally, we find that biodiversity databases are still in the initial stages of data compilation. Novel and integrative applications are restricted to certain taxonomic groups and regions with higher numbers of quality records. Continued data digitization, publication, enhancement, and quality control efforts are necessary to make biodiversity science more efficient and relevant in our fast-changing environment.
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.