Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39114921›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem.

Diana E Bowler, Robin J Boyd, Corey T Callaghan, Robert A Robinson, Nick J B Isaac, Michael J O Pocock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. RUM/FILH: a standardized operational capability model for biodiversity databases.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Vocal mimicry in Corvids.Animal cognition · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Precision ecology for targeted conservation action.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Diana E BowlerUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7775-1668
Robin J BoydUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7973-9865
Corey T CallaghanDepartment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 3205 College Avenue, Davie, Florida, 33314-7719, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0415-2709
Robert A RobinsonBritish Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0504-9906
Nick J B IsaacUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4869-8052
Michael J O PocockUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Wallingford, OX10 8BB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4375-0445

Funding

Natural Environment Research Council NE/R016429/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Big biodiversity data sets have great potential for monitoring and research because of their large taxonomic, geographic and temporal scope. Such data sets have become especially important for assessing temporal changes in species' populations and distributions. Gaps in the available data, especially spatial and temporal gaps, often mean that the data are not representative of the target population. This hinders drawing large-scale inferences, such as about species' trends, and may lead to misplaced conservation action. Here, we conceptualise gaps in biodiversity monitoring data as a missing data problem, which provides a unifying framework for the challenges and potential solutions across different types of biodiversity data sets. We characterise the typical types of data gaps as different classes of missing data and then use missing data theory to explore the implications for questions about species' trends and factors affecting occurrences/abundances. By using this framework, we show that bias due to data gaps can arise when the factors affecting sampling and/or data availability overlap with those affecting species. But a data set per se is not biased. The outcome depends on the ecological question and statistical approach, which determine choices around which sources of variation are taken into account. We argue that typical approaches to long-term species trend modelling using monitoring data are especially susceptible to data gaps since such models do not tend to account for the factors driving missingness. To identify general solutions to this problem, we review empirical studies and use simulation studies to compare some of the most frequently employed approaches to deal with data gaps, including subsampling, weighting and imputation. All these methods have the potential to reduce bias but may come at the cost of increased uncertainty of parameter estimates. Weighting techniques are arguably the least used so far in ecology and have the potential to reduce both the bias and variance of parameter estimates. Regardless of the method, the ability to reduce bias critically depends on knowledge of, and the availability of data on, the factors creating data gaps. We use this review to outline the necessary considerations when dealing with data gaps at different stages of the data collection and analysis workflow.

Indexed as

BiodiversityAnimalsBiasbiodiversity changecitizen scienceecological modellingmacroecologyspatial bias

Identifiers

PMID39114921
PMCPMC11718628

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.