Jump to content

Draft:Comparison of Biodiversity Data Platforms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Comment: No WP:SIRS-compliant sources make the comparison. We behold a WP:SYNTH / WP:OR example. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Requires independent coverage from reliable sources; all of the references are taken from the data platforms' "About Us" pages on their personal websites, which are unreliable. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


Biodiversity data platforms are digital tools that facilitate the collection, management, analysis, and sharing of information about Earth's biodiversity. These platforms play a significant role in various fields like scientific research, conservation efforts, and environmental policymaking.[1].

Types of Platforms

[edit]

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)[2] A central repository for biodiversity data from various sources, allowing researchers to explore species distribution, identify biodiversity hotspots, and assess environmental change impacts.

iNaturalist[3]. A popular platform combining social networking with species identification. Users share observations of plants, animals, and fungi with a community of naturalists. It utilizes crowdsourcing for identification, making it valuable for citizen science and contributing significantly to GBIF.

Observation.org[4] Another platform focused on citizen science and data collection. It emphasizes data quality through image recognition software and expert validation. Similar to iNaturalist, observations contribute to GBIF.

SpeciesHub[5] Primarily designed for professional biologists, offering tools for managing and analyzing biodiversity data, including collection, organization, and analysis. It is often used for specific research projects and may not contribute directly to other global databases.

Comparison of Platforms[6][7][8][9][10]

[edit]
Feature GBIF iNaturalist Observation.org SpeciesHub
Focus Data aggregation and access Community-based identification and data sharing Citizen science and data quality Data management and analysis for researchers
User Base Researchers, policymakers, public Naturalists, citizen scientists Citizen scientists, researchers Researchers
Data Accessibility Open access Public with some privacy controls Public Privacy-focused, with public data option
Data Contribution to GBIF Significant contributor Significant contributor Significant contributor[11] No contribution

Overall

[edit]

These platforms play complementary roles in advancing our understanding of biodiversity. GBIF provides a global view, iNaturalist and Observation.org mobilize citizen scientists, and SpeciesHub supports professional research. Together, they contribute to a more comprehensive and accessible picture of Earth's biodiversity, informing conservation efforts and scientific discoveries. [6][7][9]

Note: This is a general overview. For detailed information, please refer to the platforms' websites and relevant publications.

See also

[edit]
  1. ^ Heberling, J. Mason; Miller, Joseph T.; Noesgaard, Daniel; Weingart, Scott B.; Schigel, Dmitry (2021). "Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (6). doi:10.1073/pnas.2018093118. PMC 8017944. PMID 33526679.
  2. ^ "What is GBIF?". Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  3. ^ "About iNaturalist". Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  4. ^ "About Observation.org". About Observation.org. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  5. ^ "About SpeciesHub". SpeciesHub. Retrieved 16 August 2024.
  6. ^ a b Foellmer, Matthias (30 November 2022). "Harnessing the full potential of iNaturalist and other databases". Peer Community in Zoology. 1. doi:10.24072/pci.zool.100017.
  7. ^ a b White, Elizabeth; Soltis, Pamela S.; Soltis, Douglas E.; Guralnick, Robert (2023). "Quantifying error in occurrence data:Comparing the data quality of iNaturalist anddigitized herbarium specimen data in floweringplant families of the southeastern United States". PLOS ONE. 18 (12): e0295298. Bibcode:2023PLoSO..1895298W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295298. PMC 10703310. PMID 38060477.
  8. ^ Billotte, Jackie (2022). "A pipeline for assessing the quality of images and metadata from crowd-sourced databases". Peer Community in Zoology. doi:10.1101/2022.04.29.490112.
  9. ^ a b López-Guillén, Eduard; Herrera, Ileana; Bensid, Badis; Gómez-Bellver, Carlos; Ibáñez, Neus; Jiménez-Mejías, Pedro; Mairal, Mario; Mena-García, Laura; Nualart, Neus; Utjés-Mascó, Mònica; López-Pujol, Jordi (2024). "Strengths and Challenges of Using iNaturalist in Plant Research with Focus on Data Quality". Diversity. 16(1):42: 42. doi:10.3390/d16010042.
  10. ^ CHANDLER, M., See, L., Buesching, C. D., Cousins, J. A., Gillies, C., Kays, R. W., ... & Tiago, P. (2017). Involving citizen scientists in biodiversity observation. The GEO handbook on biodiversity observation networks. pp. 211–237.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ "The Observation.org sightings can now be found on GBIF!". Retrieved 16 August 2024.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Comparison_of_Biodiversity_Data_Platforms&oldid=1242673202"