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.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

Reply to: Estimates of the number of undescribed species should account for sampling effort

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 8, pages 641–644 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

The Original Article was published on 21 February 2024

replying to S. Button & A. Borzée Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02312-5 (2024)

In a reflection on our recent research on terrestrial vertebrate species discovery1, Button and Borzée2 argue that a time-to-event framework does not adequately account for sampling effort over time and that past rates would not be predictive of future rates of species discovery. Surprisingly, Button and Borzée support their point with the time-insensitive nature of species accumulation curves, an approach not explored in our work. They propose an alternative prediction of discovery potential that mixes two different biodiversity shortfalls, which inherently show patterns distinct from our projections of unknown species. Despite this misunderstanding, and acknowledging the complex and necessarily imperfect nature of such forecasts, we welcome this opportunity to further clarify and validate our model framework. We show that our model, which was parameterized on pre-2015 data, offered a strikingly strong match with the geographic and taxonomic distribution of ‘future’ amphibian discoveries in 2015–2023.

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: Association between per-cell description rates and subsequent discoveries observed across time.
Fig. 2: Relationship between per-cell description rates in the 2000s and projected future discoveries.
Fig. 3: Comparison between observed and projected amphibian discoveries.

References

  1. Moura, M. R. & Jetz, W. Shortfalls and opportunities in terrestrial vertebrate species discovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 631–639 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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).

  3. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Collen, B., Purvis, A. & Gittleman, J. L. Biological correlates of description date in carnivores and primates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 13, 459–467 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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).

  10. Hughes, A. C. et al. Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. Ecography 44, 1259–1269 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R. & Legendre, F. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. 7, 9132 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

  14. Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).

  15. Meyer, C., Kreft, H., Guralnick, R. & Jetz, W. Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nat. Commun. 6, 8221 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carvalho, R. L. et al. Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research. Curr. Biol. 33, 3495–3504.e4 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. AmphibiaWeb (Univ. California, Berkeley, accessed 19 March 2023); https://amphibiaweb.org

  21. 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).

  22. Moura, M. R. et al. Geographical and socioeconomic determinants of species discovery trends in a biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Conserv. 220, 237–244 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Mario R. Moura

  2. Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Areia, Brazil

    Mario R. Moura

  3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Walter Jetz

  4. Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Walter Jetz

Authors
  1. Mario R. Moura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walter Jetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Mario R. Moura.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02343-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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