Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31509534›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Research applications of primary biodiversity databases in the digital age.

Joan E Ball-Damerow, Laura Brenskelle, Narayani Barve, Pamela S Soltis, Petra Sierwald, Rüdiger Bieler, Raphael LaFrance, Arturo H Ariño, Robert P Guralnick

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Globally aggregated biodiversity data impact predictive and descriptive research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Impact of obscured data on species distribution models.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. RevisitingPeerJ · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Joan E Ball-DamerowField Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2601-5043
Laura BrenskelleFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Narayani BarveFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7893-8774
Pamela S SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Petra SierwaldField Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Rüdiger BielerField Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Raphael LaFranceFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Arturo H AriñoDepartment of Environmental Biology, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Robert P GuralnickFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BiodiversityDatabases, FactualEcosystemResearchConservation of Natural ResourcesPublications

Identifiers

PMID31509534
PMCPMC6738577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.