{"title":"Richness patterns in vertebrates are robust to the Linnean and Wallacean shortfalls","authors":"Søren Faurby, Brody Sandel","doi":"10.1111/ecog.07467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nearly all research has to rely on imprecise data. This poses a challenge of knowing which conclusions are reliable despite potential data quality issues. One field that has been fundamentally affected by this is macroecology. Can we understand drivers of biodiversity patterns without having fully reliable distributional data? In this paper, we investigated the reliability of biodiversity patterns focused on three groups of terrestrial vertebrates ranging from very well known (birds and mammals) to relatively poorly known (amphibians). We compared two expert-derived sets of range maps generated more than 10 years apart. We found that nearly half of all species had changes in taxonomy and/or distribution, but despite this, the overall spatial diversity patterns between the two sets were extraordinarily similar for all three groups. We further found that the minute changes in richness we saw were almost exclusively driven by changes in the mapped ranges of already known species rather than the discovery of new species, even though up to 18% of new species were added between assessments. Since the patterns were highly similar between the assessments, this suggests that, at least for vertebrates, data quality does not affect analyses of biodiversity patterns. This further implies that results based on older and less precise input data remain reliable, even though more precise input data have become available.","PeriodicalId":51026,"journal":{"name":"Ecography","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.07467","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Nearly all research has to rely on imprecise data. This poses a challenge of knowing which conclusions are reliable despite potential data quality issues. One field that has been fundamentally affected by this is macroecology. Can we understand drivers of biodiversity patterns without having fully reliable distributional data? In this paper, we investigated the reliability of biodiversity patterns focused on three groups of terrestrial vertebrates ranging from very well known (birds and mammals) to relatively poorly known (amphibians). We compared two expert-derived sets of range maps generated more than 10 years apart. We found that nearly half of all species had changes in taxonomy and/or distribution, but despite this, the overall spatial diversity patterns between the two sets were extraordinarily similar for all three groups. We further found that the minute changes in richness we saw were almost exclusively driven by changes in the mapped ranges of already known species rather than the discovery of new species, even though up to 18% of new species were added between assessments. Since the patterns were highly similar between the assessments, this suggests that, at least for vertebrates, data quality does not affect analyses of biodiversity patterns. This further implies that results based on older and less precise input data remain reliable, even though more precise input data have become available.
期刊介绍:
ECOGRAPHY publishes exciting, novel, and important articles that significantly advance understanding of ecological or biodiversity patterns in space or time. Papers focusing on conservation or restoration are welcomed, provided they are anchored in ecological theory and convey a general message that goes beyond a single case study. We encourage papers that seek advancing the field through the development and testing of theory or methodology, or by proposing new tools for analysis or interpretation of ecological phenomena. Manuscripts are expected to address general principles in ecology, though they may do so using a specific model system if they adequately frame the problem relative to a generalized ecological question or problem.
Purely descriptive papers are considered only if breaking new ground and/or describing patterns seldom explored. Studies focused on a single species or single location are generally discouraged unless they make a significant contribution to advancing general theory or understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes. Manuscripts merely confirming or marginally extending results of previous work are unlikely to be considered in Ecography.
Papers are judged by virtue of their originality, appeal to general interest, and their contribution to new developments in studies of spatial and temporal ecological patterns. There are no biases with regard to taxon, biome, or biogeographical area.