Search

ABSTRACT Big biodiversity data sets have great potential for monitoring and research because of their large taxonomic, geographic and temporal scope. Such data sets have become especially important for assessing temporal changes in species' populations and distributions. Gaps in the available data, especially spatial and temporal gaps, often mean that the data are not representative of the target population. This hinders drawing large‐scale inferences, such as about species' trends, and may lead to misplaced conservation action. Here, we conceptualise gaps in biodiversity monitoring data as a missing data problem, which provides a unifying framework for the challenges and potential solutions across different types of biodiversity data sets. We characterise the typical types of data gaps as different classes of missing data and then use missing data theory to explore the implications for questions about species' trends and factors affecting occurrences/abundances. By using this framework, we show that bias due to data gaps can arise when the factors affecting sampling and/or data availability overlap with those affecting species. But a data set per se is not biased. The outcome depends on the ecological question and statistical approach, which determine choices around which sources of variation are taken into account. We argue that typical approaches to long‐term species trend modelling using monitoring data are especially susceptible to data gaps since such models do not tend to account for the factors driving missingness. To identify general solutions to this problem, we review empirical studies and use simulation studies to compare some of the most frequently employed approaches to deal with data gaps, including subsampling, weighting and imputation. All these methods have the potential to reduce bias but may come at the cost of increased uncertainty of parameter estimates. Weighting techniques are arguably the least used so far in ecology and have the potential to reduce both the bias and variance of parameter estimates. Regardless of the method, the ability to reduce bias critically depends on knowledge of, and the availability of data on, the factors creating data gaps. We use this review to outline the necessary considerations when dealing with data gaps at different stages of the data collection and analysis workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Geographic biases cause error when estimating species occupancy. • Using theory and simulations, we show that error is larger at finer resolutions. • Estimates of occupancy are also more "useful" at finer scales. • So, there is a trade-off between "usefulness" and accuracy. Species occupancy is often defined as the proportion of areal units (sites) in a landscape that the focal species occupies, but it is usually estimated from the subset of sites that have been sampled. Assuming no measurement error, we show that three quantities–the degree of sampling bias (in terms of site selection), the proportion of sites that have been sampled and the variability of true occupancy across sites–determine the extent to which a sample-based estimate of occupancy differs from its true value across the wider landscape. That these are the only three quantities (measurement error notwithstanding) to affect the accuracy of estimates of species occupancy is the fundamental insight of the "Meng equation", an algebraic re-expression of statistical error. We use simulations to show how each of the three quantities vary with the spatial resolution of the analysis and that absolute estimation error is lower at coarser resolutions. Absolute error scales similarly with resolution regardless of the size and clustering of the virtual species' distribution. Finely resolved estimates of species occupancy have the potential to be more useful than coarse ones, but this potential is only realised if the estimates are at least reasonably accurate. Consequently, wherever there is the potential for sampling bias, there is a trade-off between spatial resolution and accuracy, and the Meng equation provides a theoretical framework in which analysts can consider the balance between the two. An obvious next step is to consider the implications of the Meng equation for estimating a time trend in species occupancy, where it is the confounding of error and true change that is of most interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]