Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations

Although the geographical context of ecological observations shapes ecological theory, the global distribution of ecological studies has never been analyzed. Here, we document the global distribution and context (protected status, biome, anthrome, and net primary productivity) of 2573 terrestrial st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in ecology and the environment Vol. 10; no. 4; pp. 195 - 201
Main Authors Martin, Laura J, Bernd Blossey, Erle Ellis
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Ecological Society of America 01.05.2012
Subjects
conservation areas
developed countries
ecologists
ecosystems
geographical distribution
humans
primary productivity
woodlands
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:Although the geographical context of ecological observations shapes ecological theory, the global distribution of ecological studies has never been analyzed. Here, we document the global distribution and context (protected status, biome, anthrome, and net primary productivity) of 2573 terrestrial study sites reported in recent publications (2004–2009) of 10 highly cited ecology journals. We find evidence of several geographical biases, including overrepresentation of protected areas, temperate deciduous woodlands, and wealthy countries. Even within densely settled or agricultural regions, ecologists tend to study “natural” fragments. Such biases in trendsetting journals may limit the scalability of ecological theory and hinder conservation efforts in the 75% of the terrestrial world where humans live and work.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110154
ISSN:1540-9295
DOI:10.1890/110154