Online solutions and the ‘Wallacean shortfall’: what does GBIF contribute to our knowledge of species' ranges?

156 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Spatial bias in the GBIF database and its effect on modeling species' geographic distributions (2014, background): “We carried out this study on an exemplar species in a particular region, but similar and even stronger biases exist for other taxa (e.g., Beck et al., 2013; Kramer-Schadt et al., 2013) or when comparing European to non-European distribution records.”
Mapping the Global Potential Geographical Distribution of Black Locust (Robinia Pseudoacacia L.) Using Herbarium Data and a Maximum Entropy Model (2014, methodology): “5°) was that there may have been a sampling bias or error at a fine resolution in the GBIF and CVH occurrence records, which would produce models of lower rather than higher quality [21].”
Can we derive macroecological patterns from primary Global Biodiversity Information Facility data (2015, background): “Distribution estimates of species based on GBIF primary data are probably biased (Yesson et al., 2007; Mesibov, 2013; Guisande et al. 2013) and cannot provide reliable predictions of the extent of ranges (Beck et al., 2013).”