Uncertainty matters: ascertaining where specimens in natural history collections come from and its implications for predicting species distributions

Natural history collections (NHCs) represent an enormous and largely untapped wealth of information on the Earth's biota, made available through GBIF as digital preserved specimen records. Precise knowledge of where the specimens were collected is paramount to rigorous ecological studies, especially in the field of species distribution modelling. Here, we present a first comprehensive analysis of georeferencing quality for all preserved specimen records served by GBIF, and illustrate the impact that coordinate uncertainty may have on predicted potential distributions. We used all GBIF preserved specimen records to analyse the availability of coordinates and associated spatial uncertainty across geography, spatial resolution, taxonomy, publishing institutions and collection time. We used three plant species across their native ranges in different parts of the world to show the impact of uncertainty on predicted potential distributions. We found that 38% of the 180+ million records provide coordinates only and 18% coordinates and uncertainty. Georeferencing quality is determined more by country of collection and publishing than by taxonomic group. Distinct georeferencing practices are more determinant than implicit characteristics and georeferencing difficulty of specimens. Availability and quality of records contrasts across world regions. Uncertainty values are not normally distributed but peak at very distinct values, which can be traced back to specific regions of the world. Uncertainty leads to a wide spectrum of range sizes when modelling species distributions, potentially affecting conclusions in biogeographical and climate change studies. In summary, the digitised fraction of the world's NHCs are far from optimal in terms of georeferencing and quality mainly depends on where the collections are hosted. A collective effort between communities around NHC institutions, ecological research and data infrastructure is needed to bring the data on a par with its importance and relevance for ecological research

Uncertain Geo-Uncertainty: Ecological research and public biodiversity data repositories

Natural history collections represent a vast and superb wealth of information gathered and curated across centuries by institutions such as natural history museums and botanical gardens around the world. The relatively recent advent and maturation of accessible computer technology has allowed the initiation of major digitization projects aimed at making the contents of these collections publicly available for education and research purposes. The final destinations of these newly digitized data are public biodiversity data repositories, of which, GBIF is the main one. These respositories are gateways where researchers can access and retrieve the data for use in a wide range of analyses. This unprecedented volume of information on biodiversity represents an extraordinary asset for research in ecology and evolution. A particularly important part of the digitized data for any given specimen is its collection location, as it indirectly gives information on the species' habitat and thus, its ecological requirements. Many specimens in natural history collections come from a time where the collecting event, which includes the location information, was hand-written on physical tags attached to the specimen. This location information was given as a description of a place, e.g. a site name, and could be a rather precise or vague description. In order to convert this description of locality into a digitized research-grade georeferenced record, the research community has come up with a set of guidelines and recommendations; the most prominent one the point-radius method devised by Wieczorek et al. in 2004. However, and despite the public availability of this know-how, the end result is that the data available at the end of the pipeline, e.g. GBIF, often lacks georeferencing information with enough quality to be used for research purposes. Occurrence records from natural history collection datasets held at GBIF, often lack spatial coordinates and, if present, in most cases their precision and uncertainty fields are blank. The final consequence of this lack of complete georeferencing information is that the affected records are rendered useless for many kinds of research. For example, the flourishing field of species distribution modelling absolutely depends on accurate spatial information in order to be able to retrieve information on the environmental conditions in which the species live. The availability of global environmental and remote sensing datasets together with the sophisticated geospatial tools at the disposal of the researcher become powerless if no quality geoinformation is available. In this study, we perform a preliminary analysis on the status and availability of geoferencing information in datasets originated from specimens in natural history collections held at GBIF, discuss how the quality of this spatial info may affect ecological research, and conclude with some recommendations on how to better describe the georeferencing process within public digital biodiversity repositories

Uncertainty matters: ascertaining where specimens in natural history collections come from and its implications for predicting species distributions

Natural history collections (NHCs) represent an enormous and largely untapped wealth of information on the Earth's biota, made available through GBIF as digital preserved specimen records. Precise knowledge of where the specimens were collected is paramount to rigorous ecological studies, especially in the field of species distribution modelling. Here, we present a first comprehensive analysis of georeferencing quality for all preserved specimen records served by GBIF, and illustrate the impact that coordinate uncertainty may have on predicted potential distributions. We used all GBIF preserved specimen records to analyse the availability of coordinates and associated spatial uncertainty across geography, spatial resolution, taxonomy, publishing institutions and collection time. We used three plant species across their native ranges in different parts of the world to show the impact of uncertainty on predicted potential distributions. We found that 38% of the 180+ million records provide coordinates only and 18% coordinates and uncertainty. Georeferencing quality is determined more by country of collection and publishing than by taxonomic group. Distinct georeferencing practices are more determinant than implicit characteristics and georeferencing difficulty of specimens. Availability and quality of records contrasts across world regions. Uncertainty values are not normally distributed but peak at very distinct values, which can be traced back to specific regions of the world. Uncertainty leads to a wide spectrum of range sizes when modelling species distributions, potentially affecting conclusions in biogeographical and climate change studies. In summary, the digitised fraction of the world's NHCs are far from optimal in terms of georeferencing and quality mainly depends on where the collections are hosted. A collective effort between communities around NHC institutions, ecological research and data infrastructure is needed to bring the data on a par with its importance and relevance for ecological research

Quality issues in georeferencing: from physical collections to digital data repositories for ecological research

Natural history collections constitute an enormous wealth of information of Life on Earth. It is estimated that over 2 billion specimens are preserved at institutions worldwide, of which less than 10% are accessible via biodiversity data aggregators such as GBIF. Moreover, they are a very important resource for eco¿evolutionary research, which greatly depends on knowing the precise location where the specimens were collected in order to characterize the environment in which they lived. Yet, only about 55% of the accessible records are georeferenced and only 31% have coordinate uncertainty information, which is critical for conducting rigorous studies. The awareness of this gap of knowledge which hinders the enormous potential of such data in research led to the organization of a workshop which brought together key players in georeferencing of natural history collections. The discussion and outcomes of this workshop are here presented

Quality issues in georeferencing: from physical collections to digital data repositories for ecological research

Natural history collections constitute an enormous wealth of information of Life on Earth. It is estimated that over 2 billion specimens are preserved at institutions worldwide, of which less than 10% are accessible via biodiversity data aggregators such as GBIF. Moreover, they are a very important resource for eco¿evolutionary research, which greatly depends on knowing the precise location where the specimens were collected in order to characterize the environment in which they lived. Yet, only about 55% of the accessible records are georeferenced and only 31% have coordinate uncertainty information, which is critical for conducting rigorous studies. The awareness of this gap of knowledge which hinders the enormous potential of such data in research led to the organization of a workshop which brought together key players in georeferencing of natural history collections. The discussion and outcomes of this workshop are here presented

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field