Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31871833›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Exploring snake occurrence records: Spatial biases and marginal gains from accessible social media.

Benjamin M Marshall, Colin T Strine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A database on the historical and current occurrences of snakes in Eswatini.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Benjamin M MarshallSchool of Biology, Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.
Colin T StrineSchool of Biology, Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A species' distribution provides fundamental information on: climatic niche, biogeography, and conservation status. Species distribution models often use occurrence records from biodiversity databases, subject to spatial and taxonomic biases. Deficiencies in occurrence data can lead to incomplete species distribution estimates. We can incorporate other data sources to supplement occurrence datasets. The general public is creating (via GPS-enabled cameras to photograph wildlife) incidental occurrence records that may present an opportunity to improve species distribution models. We investigated (1) occurrence data of a cryptic group of animals: non-marine snakes, in a biodiversity database (Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)) and determined (2) whether incidental occurrence records extracted from geo-tagged social media images (Flickr) could improve distribution models for 18 tropical snake species. We provide R code to search for and extract data from images using Flickr's API. We show the biodiversity database's 302,386 records disproportionately originate from North America, Europe and Oceania (250,063, 82.7%), with substantial gaps in tropical areas that host the highest snake diversity. North America, Europe and Oceania averaged several hundred records per species; whereas Asia, Africa and South America averaged less than 35 per species. Occurrence density showed similar patterns; Asia, Africa and South America have roughly ten-fold fewer records per 100 km

Indexed as

FlickrGBIFLow detectabilityOccurrenceSnakeSocial mediaSpecies distribution modelsTropical

Identifiers

PMID31871833
PMCPMC6924322

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.