This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Moura, M. R. & Jetz, W. Shortfalls and opportunities in terrestrial vertebrate species discovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 631–639 (2021).
Button, S. & Borzée, A. Estimates of the number of undescribed species should account for sampling effort. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02312-5 (2024).
Costello, M. J., Wilson, S. & Houlding, B. Predicting total global species richness using rates of species description and estimates of taxonomic effort. Syst. Biol. 61, 871–883 (2012).
Stork, N. E., McBroom, J., Gely, C. & Hamilton, A. J. New approaches narrow global species estimates for beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7519–7523 (2015).
Joppa, L. N., Roberts, D. L. & Pimm, S. L. How many species of flowering plants are there? Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 554–559 (2011).
Colli, G. R. et al. In the depths of obscurity: knowledge gaps and extinction risk of Brazilian worm lizards (Squamata, Amphisbaenidae). Biol. Conserv. 204, 51–62 (2016).
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Bini, L. M., Bastos, R. P., Vieira, C. M. & Vieira, L. C. G. Priority areas for anuran conservation using biogeographical data: a comparison of greedy, rarity, and simulated annealing algorithms to define reserve networks in Cerrado. Braz. J. Biol. 65, 251–261 (2005).
Collen, B., Purvis, A. & Gittleman, J. L. Biological correlates of description date in carnivores and primates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 13, 459–467 (2004).
Meyer, C., Jetz, W., Guralnick, R. P., Fritz, S. A. & Kreft, H. Range geometry and socio-economics dominate species-level biases in occurrence information. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 1181–1193 (2016).
Hughes, A. C. et al. Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. Ecography 44, 1259–1269 (2021).
Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R. & Legendre, F. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. 7, 9132 (2017).
Titley, M. A., Snaddon, J. L. & Turner, E. C. Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions. PLoS ONE 12, e0189577 (2017).
Button, S. & Borzée, A. A new multi-metric approach for quantifying global biodiscovery and conservation priorities reveals overlooked hotspots for amphibians. Preprint at OSF Preprints https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9r7sg (2023).
Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).
Meyer, C., Kreft, H., Guralnick, R. & Jetz, W. Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nat. Commun. 6, 8221 (2015).
Jetz, W. & Rahbek, C. Geometric constraints explain much of the species richness pattern in African birds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5661–5666 (2001).
Colwell, R. K., Rahbek, C. & Gotelli, N. J. The mid-domain effect and species richness patterns: what have we learned so far? Am. Nat. 163, E1–E23 (2004).
Carvalho, R. L. et al. Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research. Curr. Biol. 33, 3495–3504.e4 (2023).
Guedes, J. J. M., Moura, M. R., Alexandre, F. & Diniz‐Filho, J. Species out of sight: elucidating the determinants of research effort in global reptiles. Ecography 2023, e06491 (2023).
AmphibiaWeb (Univ. California, Berkeley, accessed 19 March 2023); https://amphibiaweb.org
Womack, M. C. et al. State of the Amphibia 2020: a review of five years of amphibian research and existing resources. Ichthyol. Herpetol. 110, 638–661 (2022).
Moura, M. R. et al. Geographical and socioeconomic determinants of species discovery trends in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 220, 237–244 (2018).
Acknowledgements
We thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo for grants to M.R.M. (FAPESP #2021/11840-6 and #2022/12231-6), the US National Science Foundation (NSF) for grants supporting W.J. (DEB-1441737 and DEB-1441719), and NASA grants to W.J. (80NSSC17K0282 and 80NSSC18K0435).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.R.M. researched data for the article, performed the analysis and prepared the figures. M.R.M. and W.J. wrote the article, reviewed and/or edited the paper before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Joaquin Hortal for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moura, M.R., Jetz, W. Reply to: Estimates of the number of undescribed species should account for sampling effort. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 641–644 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02343-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02343-6