Current GBIF occurrence data demonstrates both promise and limitations for potential red listing of spiders

Abstract

Conservation assessments of hyperdiverse groups of organisms are often challenging and limited by the availability of occurrence data needed to calculate assessment metrics such as extent of occurrence (EOO). Spiders represent one such diverse group and have historically been assessed using primary literature with retrospective georeferencing. Here we demonstrate the differences in estimations of EOO and hypothetical IUCN Red List classifications for two extensive spider datasets comprising 479 species in total. The EOO were estimated and compared using literature-based assessments, Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)-based assessments and combined data assessments. We found that although few changes to hypothetical IUCN Red List classifications occurred with the addition of GBIF data, some species (3.3%) which could previously not be classified could now be assessed with the addition of GBIF data. In addition, the hypothetical classification changed for others (1.5%). On the other hand, GBIF data alone did not provide enough data for 88.7% of species. These results demonstrate the potential of GBIF data to serve as an additional source of information for conservation assessments, complementing literature data, but not particularly useful on its own as it stands right now for spiders.

Analysis of endemism of world arthropod distribution data supports biogeographic regions and many established subdivisions

“…Of course, rare species with unique distributions matching that of no other species will not define an area of endemism under a criterion as strict as the one used here. Shirey et al (2019) studied the differences in estimations of extent of occurrence (i.e. literature-based assessments or GBIF data) and hypothetical IUCN Red List classifications for two extensive spider datasets.…”

Mining data from legacy taxonomic literature and application for sampling spiders of the Teutamus group (Araneae; Liocranidae) in Southeast Asia

“…This allows taxonomic literature data to be analyzed together with data from Natural History collections and observation networks. Many studies have explored the limits and capabilities of GBIF data for setting conservation priorities [57][58][59][60] , modeling 57,61,62 , aggregation of different kinds of data and its biases 52,56,59,60,63,64 , among others. The major GBIF data domains (institutional collections databases, observation networks, taxonomic literature, and, in some cases, DNA sequence databases), each have their particular biases, but taken together are complementary enough to serve as a basis for building more complete biodiversity knowledge.…”

Climatic Suitability and Distribution Overlap of Sawflies (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) and Threatened Populations of Pinaceae

“…[25] and points with less than 5 km between each other were eliminated. All occurrence records from biodiversity databases were checked for credibility, taxonomy, and nomenclature [26], then filtered removing: (1) records with low coordinate precision, (2) duplicate data, (3) records without geographic coordinates, and (4) those outside its historical range [27,28].…”