Q&A: Biodiversity, distorted

Written byLauren Urban

| 3 min read

There is growing concern about the loss of biodiversity worldwide, but scientists cannot measure how much an ecosystem has changed without good historical data. However, this data may be skewed, with certain time periods, species, or regions better represented than others. linkurl:Elizabeth Boakes,;http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/e.h.boakes an ecologist at Imperial College's Natural Environmental Research Council Centre for Population Biology in Berkshire, United Kingdom and her team looked for biases in historical data for the avian order Galliformes, representing fowl and game birds such as partridges and pheasants. Not surprisingly, their report, published this week in PLoS Biology, found that historical data were biased, such as towards Western Europe and Southeast Asia, as well as towards threatened species, which accumulated a disproportionate amount of reporting. Boakes spoke to The Scientist about ways to improve the biodiversity record.

Male Swinhoe's Pheasant
Image: Wikimedia commons,
Robert tdc

The Scientist: What was the goal of the study? Elizabeth Boakes: We collected data from five different types of sources: literature, museum collection, [tagging birds], atlas data and trip report data [from birdwatchers]. Basically we wanted to see if those data sources painted the same picture of biodiversity, both spatially and historically. We found they gave very different pictures; and none of them gave the complete picture. So as a scientist, you need to ensure that you use as many different types of data as possible in the study. TS: Why did you choose to study Galliformes? EB: They were a good group because there has been a long association with humans. The order has been hunted for food, their feathers used for ornamentation in religious ceremonies, and they are very popular with birdwatchers today. In addition, the birds are quite large and easy to see. They represent a whole range of traits, and they are the second most threatened order of birds. TS: What problems did you find with the biodiversity record? EB: Common sense told us that historical data would be patchy, but what we were really surprised by is that current data, from the last 30 years, is very heavily biased towards regions of high biodiversity and threatened species. We have relatively little data on common species and in some cases absolutely no data in areas of low biodiversity. This was surprising and quite worrying as well, because obviously this data could become very important in the future if those areas or species come under threat. TS: What does this mean for the future of biodiversity records? EB: In the past museums were able to provide an overall picture of biodiversity; they can't do this anymore. It was clear that some of their records were deteriorating and many museums had suffered drastic funding cuts making them unable to secure records. We need something to replace the role of the museum. I think citizen science -- everyday people noting down natural history records and submitting them on-line -- offers real hope for making biodiversity records complete. There are a lot of examples of citizen science that have worked, but there currently isn't a comprehensive online database for citizen scientists to report to. TS: What are the next steps of this study? EB: This study was an off-shoot of a different project where we are looking at how species ranges have changed over time. Now that this is complete, I plan on turning the information to databases, in hope of creating better tools for citizen scientists. linkurl:E.H. Boakes et al. "Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Biases in Species Occurrence Data," PLoS Biology, published online June 2, 2010, doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385.;http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Cataloging life;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/53881/
[1st December 2007]*linkurl:Q&A: Randomness reigns in ecology;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57451/
[27th May 2010]*linkurl:Amateur scientists making significant discoveries while fighting to receive recognition and respect;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/17048/
[10th June 1996]