Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa

Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa Aim To design and apply statistical tests for measuring sampling bias in the raw data used to the determine priority areas for conservation, and to discuss their impact on conservation analyses for the region. Location Sub‐Saharan Africa. Methods An extensive data set comprising 78,083 vouchered locality records for 1068 passerine birds in sub‐Saharan Africa has been assembled. Using geographical information systems, we designed and applied two tests to determine if sampling of these taxa was biased. First, we detected possible biases because of accessibility by measuring the proximity of each record to cities, rivers and roads. Second, we quantified the intensity of sampling of each species inside and surrounding proposed conservation priority areas and compared it with sampling intensity in non‐priority areas. We applied statistical tests to determine if the distribution of these sampling records deviated significantly from random distributions. Results The analyses show that the location and intensity of collecting have historically been heavily influenced by accessibility. Sampling localities show dense, significant aggregation around city limits, and along rivers and roads. When examining the collecting sites of each individual species, the pattern of sampling has been significantly concentrated within and immediately surrounding areas now designated as conservation priorities. Main conclusions Assessment of patterns of species richness and endemicity at the scale useful for establishing conservation priorities, below the continental level, undoubtedly reflects biases in taxonomic sampling. This is especially problematic for priorities established using the criterion of complementarity because the estimated spatial costs of this approach are highly sensitive to sampling artefacts. Hence such conservation priorities should be interpreted with caution proportional to the bias found. We argue that conservation priority setting analyses require (1) statistical tests to detect these biases, and (2) data treatment to reflect species distribution rather than patterns of collecting effort. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Biogeography Wiley

Geographical sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/geographical-sampling-bias-and-its-implications-for-conservation-sj0X6s97fH
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0305-0270
eISSN
1365-2699
D.O.I.
10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00946.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Aim To design and apply statistical tests for measuring sampling bias in the raw data used to the determine priority areas for conservation, and to discuss their impact on conservation analyses for the region. Location Sub‐Saharan Africa. Methods An extensive data set comprising 78,083 vouchered locality records for 1068 passerine birds in sub‐Saharan Africa has been assembled. Using geographical information systems, we designed and applied two tests to determine if sampling of these taxa was biased. First, we detected possible biases because of accessibility by measuring the proximity of each record to cities, rivers and roads. Second, we quantified the intensity of sampling of each species inside and surrounding proposed conservation priority areas and compared it with sampling intensity in non‐priority areas. We applied statistical tests to determine if the distribution of these sampling records deviated significantly from random distributions. Results The analyses show that the location and intensity of collecting have historically been heavily influenced by accessibility. Sampling localities show dense, significant aggregation around city limits, and along rivers and roads. When examining the collecting sites of each individual species, the pattern of sampling has been significantly concentrated within and immediately surrounding areas now designated as conservation priorities. Main conclusions Assessment of patterns of species richness and endemicity at the scale useful for establishing conservation priorities, below the continental level, undoubtedly reflects biases in taxonomic sampling. This is especially problematic for priorities established using the criterion of complementarity because the estimated spatial costs of this approach are highly sensitive to sampling artefacts. Hence such conservation priorities should be interpreted with caution proportional to the bias found. We argue that conservation priority setting analyses require (1) statistical tests to detect these biases, and (2) data treatment to reflect species distribution rather than patterns of collecting effort.

Journal

Journal of BiogeographyWiley

Published: Nov 1, 2003

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off