4.6 Article

Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 217, 期 2, 页码 939-955

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.14855

关键词

collector bias; geographic bias; herbarium; regional flora; sampling bias; temporal bias; trait bias

资金

  1. Harvard University Herbaria
  2. ADBC program of the US National Science Foundation [1208829, 1208835, 1208972, 1208973, 1208975, 1208989, 1209149]
  3. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1209149, 1208835] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonrandom collecting practices may bias conclusions drawn from analyses of herbarium records. Recent efforts to fully digitize and mobilize regional floras online offer a timely opportunity to assess commonalities and differences in herbarium sampling biases. We determined spatial, temporal, trait, phylogenetic, and collector biases in c. 5 million herbarium records, representing three of the most complete digitized floras of the world: Australia (AU), South Africa (SA), and New England, USA (NE). We identified numerous shared and unique biases among these regions. Shared biases included specimens collected close to roads and herbaria; specimens collected more frequently during biological spring and summer; specimens of threatened species collected less frequently; and specimens of close relatives collected in similar numbers. Regional differences included overrepresentation of graminoids in SA and AU and of annuals in AU; and peak collection during the 1910s in NE, 1980s in SA, and 1990s in AU. Finally, in all regions, a disproportionately large percentage of specimens were collected by very few individuals. We hypothesize that these mega-collectors, with their associated preferences and idiosyncrasies, shaped patterns of collection bias via 'founder effects'. Studies using herbarium collections should account for sampling biases, and future collecting efforts should avoid compounding these biases to the extent possible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据