Big data-big problems? How to circumvent problems in biodiversity
mapping and ensure meaningful results
Abstract
Our knowledge of biodiversity hinges on sufficient data, reliable
methods, and realistic models. Without an accurate assessment of species
distributions, we cannot effectively target and stem biodiversity loss.
Species range maps are the foundation of such efforts, but countless
studies have failed to account for the most basic assumptions of
reliable species mapping practices, undermining the credibility of their
results and potentially misleading and hindering conservation and
management efforts. Here, we use examples from the recent literature and
broader conservation community to highlight the substantial shortfalls
in current practices and their consequences for both analyses and
conservation management. We detail how different decisions on data
filtering impact the outcomes of analysis and provide practical
recommendations and steps for more reliable analysis, whilst
understanding the limits of what available data will reliably allow and
what methods are most appropriate. Whilst “perfect” analyses are not
possible for many taxa given limited data, and biases, ensuring we use
data within reasonable limits and understanding inherent assumptions is
crucial to ensure appropriate use. By embracing and enacting such best
practices, we can ensure both the accuracy and improved comparability of
biodiversity analyses going forward, ultimately enhancing our ability to
use data to facilitate our protection of the natural world.