4.3 Article Data Paper

Flora of Russia on iNaturalist: a dataset

Journal

BIODIVERSITY DATA JOURNAL
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.8.e59249

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [20-35-70066, 19-04-00799, 19-04-00658, 19-29-05205, 20-04-00544, 19-04-00370, 18-44-860017, 19-54-53014, 18-44-030025, 19-54-53015, 19-44-710002, 19-34-70018, 20-44-420007, 19-44-233012, 20-45-380009, 20-416-380004]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [20-67-46018, 19-77-00025]
  3. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia [075-15-2020-787]
  4. Russian Geographic Society [37/2020-P]
  5. Yugra State University [13-01-20/39]
  6. International Association of Plant Taxonomy
  7. [AAAA-A16-116021660039-1]
  8. [AAAA-A17-117011810036-3]
  9. [AAAA-A17-117050400146-5]
  10. [AAAA-A18-118012690099-2]
  11. [AAAA-A18-118021490070-5]
  12. [AAAA-A18-118022090078-2]
  13. [AAAA-A19-119031290052-1]
  14. [AAAA-A18-118052590019-7]
  15. [AAAAA19-119020890099-4]
  16. [AAAA-A19-119051390034-4]
  17. [AAAA-A20-120031890003-3]
  18. [AAAA-A20-120021490040-3]
  19. Russian Science Foundation [19-77-00025, 20-67-46018] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The Flora of Russia project on iNaturalist brought together professional scientists and amateur naturalists from all over the country. Over 10,000 people were involved in the data collection. New information Within 20 months, the participants accumulated 750,143 photo observations of 6,857 species of the Russian flora. This constitutes the largest dataset of open spatial data on the country's biodiversity and a leading source of data on the current state of the national flora. About 87% of all project data, i.e. 652,285 observations, are available under free licences (CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-NC) and can be freely used in scientific, educational and environmental activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available