Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization

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,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The New phytologist 2018-01, Vol.217 (2), p.939-955
Hauptverfasser: Daru, Barnabas H., Park, Daniel S., Primack, Richard B., Willis, Charles G., Barrington, David S., Whitfeld, Timothy J. S., Seidler, Tristram G., Sweeney, Patrick W., Foster, David R., Ellison, Aaron M., Davis, Charles C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 955
container_issue 2
container_start_page 939
container_title The New phytologist
container_volume 217
creator Daru, Barnabas H.
Park, Daniel S.
Primack, Richard B.
Willis, Charles G.
Barrington, David S.
Whitfeld, Timothy J. S.
Seidler, Tristram G.
Sweeney, Patrick W.
Foster, David R.
Ellison, Aaron M.
Davis, Charles C.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/nph.14855
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1957767591</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>90016953</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>90016953</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4765-709dd75742439cc71e9b00ffe9323dbe1c8cf2143710b66e681edba71d306b7a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1LwzAYB_AgipvTgx9AKXjRQ7ekaZLmKEOdMF8Oit5K2jzdMvpm0inz01vXbQfBXB4Iv-fPwx-hU4KHpH2jsp4PSRgxtof6JOTSjwgV-6iPcRD5POTvPXTk3AJjLBkPDlEvkDiiOKR99PBmNLjagtKeU0Wdm3LmJUY5cJ4pvTnYRFmjPAufoHLQXmarwsuVnYHv0vbH02ZmGvOtGlOVx-ggU7mDk80coNfbm5fxxJ8-3d2Pr6d-GgrOfIGl1oKJMAipTFNBQCYYZxlIGlCdAEmjNAtISAXBCefAIwI6UYJoinkiFB2gyy63ttXHElwTF8alkOeqhGrpYiKZEFwwSVp68YcuqqUt2-taFUlOWbBWV51KbeWchSyurSmUXcUEx78dx23H8brj1p5vEpdJAXont6W2YNSBL5PD6v-k-PF5so086zYWrqnsbkNiTLhklP4AvYSOvQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1989635291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><source>JSTOR</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Daru, Barnabas H. ; Park, Daniel S. ; Primack, Richard B. ; Willis, Charles G. ; Barrington, David S. ; Whitfeld, Timothy J. S. ; Seidler, Tristram G. ; Sweeney, Patrick W. ; Foster, David R. ; Ellison, Aaron M. ; Davis, Charles C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Daru, Barnabas H. ; Park, Daniel S. ; Primack, Richard B. ; Willis, Charles G. ; Barrington, David S. ; Whitfeld, Timothy J. S. ; Seidler, Tristram G. ; Sweeney, Patrick W. ; Foster, David R. ; Ellison, Aaron M. ; Davis, Charles C.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-646X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-8137</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/nph.14855</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29083043</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: New Phytologist Trust</publisher><subject>Accumulators ; Australia ; Bias ; Collection ; Collections ; collector bias ; Digitization ; Endangered &amp; extinct species ; geographic bias ; Geography ; herbarium ; Models, Theoretical ; New records ; Phylogeny ; Plants - anatomy &amp; histology ; Quantitative Trait, Heritable ; Rare species ; Records ; regional flora ; Regions ; Regression Analysis ; Sampling ; sampling bias ; Selection Bias ; temporal bias ; Threatened species ; Time Factors ; trait bias</subject><ispartof>The New phytologist, 2018-01, Vol.217 (2), p.939-955</ispartof><rights>2017 New Phytologist Trust</rights><rights>2017 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2017 New Phytologist Trust</rights><rights>2017 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2017 New Phytologist Trust.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 New Phytologist Trust</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4765-709dd75742439cc71e9b00ffe9323dbe1c8cf2143710b66e681edba71d306b7a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4765-709dd75742439cc71e9b00ffe9323dbe1c8cf2143710b66e681edba71d306b7a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4151-6081 ; 0000-0002-2115-0257</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/90016953$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/90016953$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,1427,27903,27904,45553,45554,46388,46812,57996,58229</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29083043$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Daru, Barnabas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Primack, Richard B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willis, Charles G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrington, David S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitfeld, Timothy J. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seidler, Tristram G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sweeney, Patrick W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellison, Aaron M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Charles C.</creatorcontrib><title>Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization</title><title>The New phytologist</title><addtitle>New Phytol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Accumulators</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Collection</subject><subject>Collections</subject><subject>collector bias</subject><subject>Digitization</subject><subject>Endangered &amp; extinct species</subject><subject>geographic bias</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>herbarium</subject><subject>Models, Theoretical</subject><subject>New records</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Plants - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Quantitative Trait, Heritable</subject><subject>Rare species</subject><subject>Records</subject><subject>regional flora</subject><subject>Regions</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>sampling bias</subject><subject>Selection Bias</subject><subject>temporal bias</subject><subject>Threatened species</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>trait bias</subject><issn>0028-646X</issn><issn>1469-8137</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E1LwzAYB_AgipvTgx9AKXjRQ7ekaZLmKEOdMF8Oit5K2jzdMvpm0inz01vXbQfBXB4Iv-fPwx-hU4KHpH2jsp4PSRgxtof6JOTSjwgV-6iPcRD5POTvPXTk3AJjLBkPDlEvkDiiOKR99PBmNLjagtKeU0Wdm3LmJUY5cJ4pvTnYRFmjPAufoHLQXmarwsuVnYHv0vbH02ZmGvOtGlOVx-ggU7mDk80coNfbm5fxxJ8-3d2Pr6d-GgrOfIGl1oKJMAipTFNBQCYYZxlIGlCdAEmjNAtISAXBCefAIwI6UYJoinkiFB2gyy63ttXHElwTF8alkOeqhGrpYiKZEFwwSVp68YcuqqUt2-taFUlOWbBWV51KbeWchSyurSmUXcUEx78dx23H8brj1p5vEpdJAXont6W2YNSBL5PD6v-k-PF5so086zYWrqnsbkNiTLhklP4AvYSOvQ</recordid><startdate>201801</startdate><enddate>201801</enddate><creator>Daru, Barnabas H.</creator><creator>Park, Daniel S.</creator><creator>Primack, Richard B.</creator><creator>Willis, Charles G.</creator><creator>Barrington, David S.</creator><creator>Whitfeld, Timothy J. S.</creator><creator>Seidler, Tristram G.</creator><creator>Sweeney, Patrick W.</creator><creator>Foster, David R.</creator><creator>Ellison, Aaron M.</creator><creator>Davis, Charles C.</creator><general>New Phytologist Trust</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-6081</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2115-0257</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201801</creationdate><title>Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization</title><author>Daru, Barnabas H. ; Park, Daniel S. ; Primack, Richard B. ; Willis, Charles G. ; Barrington, David S. ; Whitfeld, Timothy J. S. ; Seidler, Tristram G. ; Sweeney, Patrick W. ; Foster, David R. ; Ellison, Aaron M. ; Davis, Charles C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4765-709dd75742439cc71e9b00ffe9323dbe1c8cf2143710b66e681edba71d306b7a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accumulators</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Collection</topic><topic>Collections</topic><topic>collector bias</topic><topic>Digitization</topic><topic>Endangered &amp; extinct species</topic><topic>geographic bias</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>herbarium</topic><topic>Models, Theoretical</topic><topic>New records</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Plants - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Quantitative Trait, Heritable</topic><topic>Rare species</topic><topic>Records</topic><topic>regional flora</topic><topic>Regions</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>sampling bias</topic><topic>Selection Bias</topic><topic>temporal bias</topic><topic>Threatened species</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>trait bias</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Daru, Barnabas H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Primack, Richard B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willis, Charles G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrington, David S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitfeld, Timothy J. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seidler, Tristram G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sweeney, Patrick W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ellison, Aaron M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Charles C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The New phytologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Daru, Barnabas H.</au><au>Park, Daniel S.</au><au>Primack, Richard B.</au><au>Willis, Charles G.</au><au>Barrington, David S.</au><au>Whitfeld, Timothy J. S.</au><au>Seidler, Tristram G.</au><au>Sweeney, Patrick W.</au><au>Foster, David R.</au><au>Ellison, Aaron M.</au><au>Davis, Charles C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization</atitle><jtitle>The New phytologist</jtitle><addtitle>New Phytol</addtitle><date>2018-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>217</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>939</spage><epage>955</epage><pages>939-955</pages><issn>0028-646X</issn><eissn>1469-8137</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>New Phytologist Trust</pub><pmid>29083043</pmid><doi>10.1111/nph.14855</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4151-6081</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2115-0257</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0028-646X
ispartof The New phytologist, 2018-01, Vol.217 (2), p.939-955
issn 0028-646X
1469-8137
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1957767591
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Online Library Free Content; JSTOR; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Accumulators
Australia
Bias
Collection
Collections
collector bias
Digitization
Endangered & extinct species
geographic bias
Geography
herbarium
Models, Theoretical
New records
Phylogeny
Plants - anatomy & histology
Quantitative Trait, Heritable
Rare species
Records
regional flora
Regions
Regression Analysis
Sampling
sampling bias
Selection Bias
temporal bias
Threatened species
Time Factors
trait bias
title Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T17%3A50%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Widespread%20sampling%20biases%20in%20herbaria%20revealed%20from%20large-scale%20digitization&rft.jtitle=The%20New%20phytologist&rft.au=Daru,%20Barnabas%20H.&rft.date=2018-01&rft.volume=217&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=939&rft.epage=955&rft.pages=939-955&rft.issn=0028-646X&rft.eissn=1469-8137&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/nph.14855&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E90016953%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1989635291&rft_id=info:pmid/29083043&rft_jstor_id=90016953&rfr_iscdi=true