Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Stop ignoring map uncertainty in biodiversity science and conservation policy

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 6, pages 828–829 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

To the Editor — Halting the unprecedented loss of biodiversity is one of humanity’s greatest challenges1,2. Area-based management frameworks, such as national parks or marine protected areas, are a popular tool to combat threats to biodiversity but require comprehensive information on the spatial distribution of biodiversity to properly instigate. Recent advances in observation technologies, data sharing and modelling techniques mean that comprehensive predictive maps of the distribution of species, populations, assemblages and bioregions can now be readily produced. However, despite ongoing discussion about the need to address uncertainty in species and biodiversity distribution modelling3,4,5,6,7,8, and the effect that ignoring uncertainty may have on evaluating risk (and ultimately on conservation outcomes), the uncertainty of predictions is still inadequately communicated by the research community.

In a Web of Science search, we found 96% (895 of 929) of papers published in 2020 that map biodiversity patterns did not present any kind of uncertainty map alongside their mapped predictions of species, species assemblages or biological indices such as species richness (search term: TS = (“species distribution model*” OR “habitat suitability”); see Supplementary Information and Supplementary Data for more details on the literature search). Even in cases in which a single species or species richness was modelled directly — arguably the simplest forms of spatial prediction — 96% (824 of 857) of studies published in 2020 did not present any uncertainty map in the main article.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The importance of prediction uncertainty for avoiding poor conservation outcomes.

Change history

  • 25 May 2022

    In the version of this article initially published, the Supplementary Data file was corrupted, and has now been replaced.

References

  1. WEF. The Global Risk Report 2021 (World Economic Forum, 2021).

  2. IPBES. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Unedited Draft Chapter 4: Plausible Futures of Nature, its Contributions to People and their Good Quality of Life (IPBES secretariat, 2019).

  3. Buisson, L., Thuiller, W., Casajus, N., Lek, S. & Grenouillet, G. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1145–1157 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beale, C. M. & Lennon, J. J. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 367, 247–258 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Porfirio, L. L. et al. PLoS ONE 9, e113749 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zurell, D. et al. Ecography 43, 1261–1277 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rocchini, D. et al. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35, 211–226 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. Ecol. Lett. 8, 993–1009 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barry, S. & Elith, J. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 413–423 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stoklosa, J., Daly, C., Foster, S. D., Ashcroft, M. B. & Warton, D. I. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 412–423 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hill, N. et al. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1258–1272 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lucchesi, L., Kuhnert, P. & Wikle, C. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 2409 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Popov, V., Shah, P., Runting, R. K. & Rhodes, J. R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 230–242 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Costa, B., Kendall, M. & McKagan, S. PLoS ONE 13, e0204569 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Jan Jansen, Nicole A. Hill, Marcus Haward & Craig R. Johnson

  2. School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Skipton N. C. Woolley

  3. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Skipton N. C. Woolley & Piers K. Dunstan

  4. CSIRO Data61, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Scott D. Foster

Authors
  1. Jan Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Skipton N. C. Woolley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piers K. Dunstan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott D. Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicole A. Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcus Haward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Craig R. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.J., P.K.D., N.A.H. and C.R.J. developed the initial manuscript outline. J.J. conceived and performed the literature review and analysed the data. J.J., S.N.C.W., P.K.D., S.D.F., N.A.H., M.H. and C.R.J. wrote and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Jansen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Details on the literature search, and Supplementary Table 1-3

Supplementary Data

All articles and their respective grouping

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jansen, J., Woolley, S.N.C., Dunstan, P.K. et al. Stop ignoring map uncertainty in biodiversity science and conservation policy. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 828–829 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01778-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01778-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing