Summary Rationale The era of big biodiversity data has led to rapid, exciting advances in theoretical and applied biological, ecological and conservation sciences. While large genetic, geographic and trait databases are available, these are neither complete nor random samples of the globe. Biases in species absence in these databases create problems, reducing our inferential and predictive power. Methods We performed a comprehensive examination of the taxonomic and spatial sampling in the most complete current databases for plant genes, locations, and traits. Results Only 17.7% of the world’s described land plants feature in all three databases, meaning that more than 82% of plant biodiversity lacks representation in at least one database. Species coverage is highest for location data and lowest for genetic data. Bryophytes and orchids stand out taxonomically and the equatorial region stands out spatially as poorly represented in all databases. Conclusion We have highlighted a number of clades and regions about which we know little functionally, spatially and genetically, on which we should set research targets. The scientific community should recognize and reward the significant value, both for biodiversity science and conservation, of filling in these gaps in our knowledge of the plant tree of life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cornwell et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: