2022 |
Arnald Marcer Arthur D. Chapman, John Wieczorek Xavier Picó Francesc Uribe John Waller Arturo Ariño R F H ECOGRAPHY, 2022 , 2022, ISSN: 0906-7590, 1600-0587. Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: ecological niche modelling (ENM), ecological research, GBIF, georeferencing, natural history collections, preserved specimens, species distribution modelling (SDM), Uncertainty @article{Marcer2022b, title = {Uncertainty matters: ascertaining where specimens in natural history collections come from and its implications for predicting species distributions}, author = {Arnald Marcer,Arthur D. Chapman,John R. Wieczorek,F. Xavier Picó,Francesc Uribe,John Waller,Arturo H. Ariño}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ecog.06025}, doi = {/10.1111/ecog.06025}, issn = {0906-7590, 1600-0587}, year = {2022}, date = {2022-05-09}, journal = {ECOGRAPHY}, volume = {2022}, abstract = {Natural history collections (NHCs) represent an enormous and largely untapped wealth of information on the Earth’s biota, made available through GBIF as digital preserved specimen records. Precise knowledge of where the specimens were collected is paramount to rigorous ecological studies, especially in the field of species distribution modelling. Here, we present a first comprehensive analysis of georeferencing quality for all preserved specimen records served by GBIF, and illustrate the impact that coordinate uncertainty may have on predicted potential distributions. We used all GBIF preserved specimen records to analyse the availability of coordinates and associated spatial uncertainty across geography, spatial resolution, taxonomy, publishing institutions and collection time. We used three plant species across their native ranges in different parts of the world to show the impact of uncertainty on predicted potential distributions. We found that 38% of the 180+ million records provide coordinates only and 18% coordinates and uncertainty. Georeferencing quality is determined more by country of collection and publishing than by taxonomic group. Distinct georeferencing practices are more determinant than implicit characteristics and georeferencing difficulty of specimens. Availability and quality of records contrasts across world regions. Uncertainty values are not normally distributed but peak at very distinct values, which can be traced back to specific regions of the world. Uncertainty leads to a wide spectrum of range sizes when modelling species distributions, potentially affecting conclusions in biogeographical and climate change studies. In summary, the digitised fraction of the world’s NHCs are far from optimal in terms of georeferencing and quality mainly depends on where the collections are hosted. A collective effort between communities around NHC institutions, ecological research and data infrastructure is needed to bring the data on a par with its importance and relevance for ecological research.}, keywords = {ecological niche modelling (ENM), ecological research, GBIF, georeferencing, natural history collections, preserved specimens, species distribution modelling (SDM), Uncertainty}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Natural history collections (NHCs) represent an enormous and largely untapped wealth of information on the Earth’s biota, made available through GBIF as digital preserved specimen records. Precise knowledge of where the specimens were collected is paramount to rigorous ecological studies, especially in the field of species distribution modelling. Here, we present a first comprehensive analysis of georeferencing quality for all preserved specimen records served by GBIF, and illustrate the impact that coordinate uncertainty may have on predicted potential distributions. We used all GBIF preserved specimen records to analyse the availability of coordinates and associated spatial uncertainty across geography, spatial resolution, taxonomy, publishing institutions and collection time. We used three plant species across their native ranges in different parts of the world to show the impact of uncertainty on predicted potential distributions. We found that 38% of the 180+ million records provide coordinates only and 18% coordinates and uncertainty. Georeferencing quality is determined more by country of collection and publishing than by taxonomic group. Distinct georeferencing practices are more determinant than implicit characteristics and georeferencing difficulty of specimens. Availability and quality of records contrasts across world regions. Uncertainty values are not normally distributed but peak at very distinct values, which can be traced back to specific regions of the world. Uncertainty leads to a wide spectrum of range sizes when modelling species distributions, potentially affecting conclusions in biogeographical and climate change studies. In summary, the digitised fraction of the world’s NHCs are far from optimal in terms of georeferencing and quality mainly depends on where the collections are hosted. A collective effort between communities around NHC institutions, ecological research and data infrastructure is needed to bring the data on a par with its importance and relevance for ecological research. |
2019 |
Escribano, Nora; Galicia, David; Ariño, Arturo H Game of Tops: Trends in GBIF’s Community of Users Journal Article Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 3 , pp. e37187, 2019. Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: biodiversity, community structure, data users, GBIF, research trends @article{10.3897/biss.3.37187, title = {Game of Tops: Trends in GBIF’s Community of Users}, author = {Nora Escribano and David Galicia and Arturo H Ariño}, url = {https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.37187}, doi = {10.3897/biss.3.37187}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-01-01}, journal = {Biodiversity Information Science and Standards}, volume = {3}, pages = {e37187}, publisher = {Pensoft Publishers}, abstract = {Building on the development of Biodiversity Informatics, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) undertook the task of enabling access to the world’s wealth of biodiversity data via the Internet. To date, GBIF has become, in many respects, the most extensive biodiversity information exchange infrastructure in the world, opening up a full range of possibilities for science. Science has benefited from such access to biodiversity data in research areas ranging from the effects of environmental change on biodiversity to the spread of invasive species, among many others. As of this writing, more than 7,000 published items (scientific papers, reviews, conference proceedings) have been indexed in the GBIF Secretariat’s literature tracking programme. On the basis on this database, we will represent trends in GBIF in the users’ behaviour over time regarding openness, social structure, and other features associated to such scientific production: what is the measurable impact of research using GBIF data? How is the GBIF community of users growing? Is the science made with, and enabled by, open data, actually open? Mapping GBIF users’ choices will show how biodiversity research is evolving through time, synthesising past and current priorities of this community in an attempt to forecast whether summer—or winter—is coming.}, keywords = {biodiversity, community structure, data users, GBIF, research trends}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Building on the development of Biodiversity Informatics, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) undertook the task of enabling access to the world’s wealth of biodiversity data via the Internet. To date, GBIF has become, in many respects, the most extensive biodiversity information exchange infrastructure in the world, opening up a full range of possibilities for science. Science has benefited from such access to biodiversity data in research areas ranging from the effects of environmental change on biodiversity to the spread of invasive species, among many others. As of this writing, more than 7,000 published items (scientific papers, reviews, conference proceedings) have been indexed in the GBIF Secretariat’s literature tracking programme. On the basis on this database, we will represent trends in GBIF in the users’ behaviour over time regarding openness, social structure, and other features associated to such scientific production: what is the measurable impact of research using GBIF data? How is the GBIF community of users growing? Is the science made with, and enabled by, open data, actually open? Mapping GBIF users’ choices will show how biodiversity research is evolving through time, synthesising past and current priorities of this community in an attempt to forecast whether summer—or winter—is coming. |
Lecoq, Marie-Elise; Archambeau, Anne-Sophie; Figueira, Rui; Martin, David; Pamerlon, Sophie; Robertson, Tim; Lebbe, Régine Vignes; Villaverde, Cristina The Living Atlases Community of Practice Journal Article Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 3 , pp. e35779, 2019. Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: ALA, GBIF, Living Atlases @article{10.3897/biss.3.35779, title = {The Living Atlases Community of Practice}, author = {Marie-Elise Lecoq and Anne-Sophie Archambeau and Rui Figueira and David Martin and Sophie Pamerlon and Tim Robertson and Régine Vignes Lebbe and Cristina Villaverde}, url = {https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.3.35779}, doi = {10.3897/biss.3.35779}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-01-01}, journal = {Biodiversity Information Science and Standards}, volume = {3}, pages = {e35779}, publisher = {Pensoft Publishers}, abstract = {The power and configurability of the the Atlas of Living Australia tools have enabled more and more institutions and participants of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility adapt and install biodiversity platforms. For six years, we have demonstrated that the community around this platform was needed and ready for its adoption. During the symposium organized for the SPNHC+TDWG 2018, we started a discussion that has led us to the creation of a more structured and sustainable community of practice. We want to create a community that follows the structure of open-source technical projects such as Linux or Apache foundation. After the GBIF Governing Board (GB25), the Kilkenny accord was agreed among 8 country or institution partners and early adopters of ALA platform to outline the scope of the new Living Atlases community. Thanks to this accord, we have begun to set up a new structure based on the Community of Practice (CoP) model. In summary, the governance will be held by a Management committee and a Technical advisory committee. Adding to these, the Living Atlases community will have two coordinators with technical and administrative duties. This presentation will briefly summarise the community history leading up to the agreement of the Kilkenny accord and provide information and context of the key points contained. Then, we will present and launch the new Living Atlases Community of Practice . Through this presentation, we aim to collect lessons learned and good practices from other CoP in topics like governance, communications, sustainability, among others to incorporate them in the consolidation process of the Living Atlases community.}, keywords = {ALA, GBIF, Living Atlases}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The power and configurability of the the Atlas of Living Australia tools have enabled more and more institutions and participants of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility adapt and install biodiversity platforms. For six years, we have demonstrated that the community around this platform was needed and ready for its adoption. During the symposium organized for the SPNHC+TDWG 2018, we started a discussion that has led us to the creation of a more structured and sustainable community of practice. We want to create a community that follows the structure of open-source technical projects such as Linux or Apache foundation. After the GBIF Governing Board (GB25), the Kilkenny accord was agreed among 8 country or institution partners and early adopters of ALA platform to outline the scope of the new Living Atlases community. Thanks to this accord, we have begun to set up a new structure based on the Community of Practice (CoP) model. In summary, the governance will be held by a Management committee and a Technical advisory committee. Adding to these, the Living Atlases community will have two coordinators with technical and administrative duties. This presentation will briefly summarise the community history leading up to the agreement of the Kilkenny accord and provide information and context of the key points contained. Then, we will present and launch the new Living Atlases Community of Practice . Through this presentation, we aim to collect lessons learned and good practices from other CoP in topics like governance, communications, sustainability, among others to incorporate them in the consolidation process of the Living Atlases community. |
ResearchGate Link : https://www.researchgate.net/project/MOBILISE-COST-Action-CA17106-Mobilising-Data-Policies-and-Experts-in-Scientific-Collections