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.
Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations
L. Martin,B. Blossey,Erle C. Ellis
Published 2012 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2012
- Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
- Publication date
2012-05-01
- Fields of study
Geography, Environmental Science
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-40 of 40 references · Page 1 of 1