Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment

Biodiversity data are rapidly becoming available over the Internet in common formats that promote sharing and exchange. Currently, these data are somewhat problematic, primarily with regard to geographic and taxonomic accuracy, for use in ecological research, natural resources management and conservation decision-making. However, web-based georeferencing tools that utilize best practices and gazetteer databases can be employed to improve geographic data. Taxonomic data quality can be improved through web-enabled valid taxon names databases and services, as well as more efficient mechanisms to return systematic research results and taxonomic misidentification rates back to the biodiversity community. Both of these are under construction. A separate but related challenge will be developing web-based visualization and analysis tools for tracking biodiversity change. Our aim was to discuss how such tools, combined with data of enhanced quality, will help transform today's portals to raw biodiversity data into nexuses of collaborative creation and sharing of biodiversity knowledge.

[1]  Edward O. Wilson,et al.  The Current State of Biological Diversity , 1988 .

[2]  Ingrid Kallick-Wakker,et al.  Science Icons: The Visualization of Scientific Truths , 2017 .

[3]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  The Future of Biodiversity , 1995, Science.

[4]  V. Heywood,et al.  Global Biodiversity Assessment , 1996 .

[5]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. , 2000, Science.

[6]  L. Krishtalka,et al.  Can Natural History Museums Capture the Future? , 2000 .

[7]  Jari Niemelä,et al.  Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making , 2000 .

[8]  G. Graves,et al.  Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  W. Ponder,et al.  Evaluation of Museum Collection Data for Use in Biodiversity Assessment , 2001 .

[10]  A. Peterson,et al.  PREDICTING SPECIES' GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS BASED ON ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELING , 2001 .

[11]  M. Jenkins.  Prospects for Biodiversity , 2003, Science.

[12]  R. Meier,et al.  Testing species richness estimation methods using museum label data on the Danish Asilidae , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[13]  Barbara R Stein,et al.  Mammals of the World: MaNIS as an example of data integration in a distributed network environment , 2004 .

[14]  Jorge Soberón,et al.  The use of specimen-label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican Papilionid and Pierid butterflies , 2000, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[15]  A. Peterson,et al.  New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  A. Peterson,et al.  Biodiversity informatics: managing and applying primary biodiversity data. , 2004, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[17]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection , 2004 .

[18]  J. Edwards.  Research and Societal Benefits of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility , 2004 .

[19]  A. Suarez,et al.  The Value of Museum Collections for Research and Society , 2004 .

[20]  Torsten Dikow,et al.  Significance of Specimen Databases from Taxonomic Revisions for Estimating and Mapping the Global Species Diversity of Invertebrates and Repatriating Reliable Specimen Data , 2004 .

[21]  D. P. Faith,et al.  Environmental diversity: on the best-possible use of surrogate data for assessing the relative biodiversity of sets of areas , 1996, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[22]  R. Guralnick,et al.  Strengths and weaknesses of museum and national survey data sets for predicting regional species richness: comparative and combined approaches , 2005 .

[23]  Arthur Chapman,et al.  © 2005, Global Biodiversity Information Facility Material in this publication is free to use, with proper attribution. Recommended citation format: Chapman, A. D. 2005. Principles of Data Quality, version 1.0. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen. , 2005 .

[24]  Robert P. Guralnick,et al.  CHALLENGES BUILDING ONLINE GIS SERVICES TO SUPPORT GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY MAPPING AND ANALYSIS: LESSONS FROM THE MOUNTAIN AND PLAINS DATABASE AND INFORMATICS PROJECT , 2005 .

[25]  S. Ferrier,et al.  Survey-gap analysis in expeditionary research: where do we go from here? , 2005 .

[26]  Indra Neil Sarkar,et al.  Taxongrab: Extracting Taxonomic Names from Text , 2005 .

[27]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Declan Butler,et al.  Mashups mix data into global service , 2006, Nature.

[29]  R. Guralnick,et al.  BioGeomancer: Automated Georeferencing to Map the World's Biodiversity Data , 2006, PLoS biology.

[30]  Meredith A Lane,et al.  Information infrastructure for global biological networks , 2006 .

[31]  Thiago F. Rangel,et al.  Towards an integrated computational tool for spatial analysis in macroecology and biogeography , 2006 .

[32]  Allen R. Hanson,et al.  Analytic webs support the synthesis of ecological data sets. , 2006, Ecology.

[33]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Diversity without representation , 2006, Nature.

[34]  Robert P. Guralnick,et al.  A web-based GIS tool for exploring the world's biodiversity: The Global Biodiversity Information Facility Mapping and Analysis Portal Application (GBIF-MAPA) , 2007, Ecol. Informatics.

[35]  Daniel Janies,et al.  Genomic analysis and geographic visualization of the spread of avian influenza (H5N1). , 2007, Systematic biology.