Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Geographic sampling bias in the South African Frog Atlas Project: implications for conservation planning

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality conservation planning requires quality input data. However, the broad scale sampling strategies typically employed to obtain primary species distribution data are prone to geographic bias in the form of errors of omission. This study provides a quantitative measure of sampling bias to inform accuracy assessment of conservation plans based on the South African Frog Atlas Project. Significantly higher sampling intensity near to cities and roads is likely to result in overstated conservation priority and heightened conservation conflicts in urban areas. Particularly well sampled protected areas will also erroneously appear to contribute highly to amphibian biodiversity targets. Conversely, targeted sampling in the arid northwest and along mountain ranges is needed to ensure that these under-sampled regions are not excluded from conservation plans. The South African Frog Atlas Project offers a reasonably accurate picture of the broad scale west-to-east increase in amphibian richness and abundance, but geographic bias may limit its applicability for fine scale conservation planning. The Global Amphibian Assessment species distribution data offered a less biased alternative, but only at the cost of inflated commission error.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SAFAP:

South African Frog Atlas Project

QDGC:

Quarter Degree Grid Cell

GAA:

Global Amphibian Assessment

References

  • Alexander GJ, Harrison JA, Fairbanks DH, Navarro RA (2004) Biogeography of the frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. In: Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner D, Desmet P (2007) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Technical Report. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, Pretoria

  • Boakes EH, McGowan PJK, Fuller RJ, Chang-qing D, Clark NE, O’Connor K, Mace GM (2010) Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol 8:e1000385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carey C, Alexander MA (2003) Climate change and amphibian declines: is there a link? Divers Distrib 9:111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chown SL, Van Rensburg BJ, Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL, Van Jaarsveld AS (2003) Energy, species richness, and human population size: conservation implications at a national scale. Ecol Appl 13:1233–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG (2003) Gains and losses of French butterflies: tests of predictions, under-recording and regional extinction from data in a new atlas. Biol Conserv 111:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Sparks TH, Hardy PB (1999) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. J Insect Conserv 3:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet P, Cowling R (2004) Using the species-area relationship to set baseline targets for conservation. Ecol Soc 9:11 (online) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art11. Cited 30 July 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmet P, Schaller R, Skowno A (2008) North West Province Conservation Assessment Technical Report. North West Province Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Environment, Mafikeng

  • Donald PF, Fuller RJ (1998) Ornithological atlas data: a review of uses and limitations. Bird Study 45:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver A, Maze K, Rouget M, Lombard AT, Nel J, Turpie JK, Cowling RM, Desmet P, Goodman P, Harris J, Jonas Z, Reyers B, Sink K, Strauss T (2005) National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiveristy Institute, Pretoria

  • Dunn AM, Weston MA (2008) A review of bird atlases of the world and their application. Emu 108:42–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM, Darwall W, Fishpool LDC, Foster M, Knox D, Langhammer P, Matiku P, Radford E, Salaman P, Sechrest W, Smith ML, Spector S, Tordoff A (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54:1110–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elphick CS (1997) Correcting avian richness estimates for unequal sample effort in atlas studies. Ibis 139:189–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans KL, Van Rensburg BJ, Gaston KJ, Chown SL (2006) People, species richness and human population growth. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:625–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks DHK, Kshatriya M, Van Jaarsveld AS, Underhill LG (2002) Scales and consequences of human land transformation on South African avian diversity and structure. Anim Conserv 5:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrar AA, Lötter MC (2007) Mpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency, Nelspruit

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira D, Malard F, Dole-Olivier M, Gilbert J (2007) Obligate groundwater fauna of France: diversity patterns and conservation implications. Biodivers Conserv 16:567–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S (2002) Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Syst Biol 51:331–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrier S, Powell GVN, Richardson KS, Mannion G, Overton JM, Allnutt TF, Cameron SE, Mantle K, Burgess ND, Faith DP, Lamoreux JF, Kier G, Hijmans RJ, Funk VA, Cassis GA, Fisher BL, Flemons P, Lees D, Lovett JC, Van Rompaey RSAR (2004) Mapping more of terrestrial biodiversity for global conservation assessment. Bioscience 54:1101–1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freitag S, Hobson C, Biggs HC, Van Jaarsveld AS (1998) Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. Anim Conserv 1:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk VA, Richardson KS (2002) Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it. Syst Biol 51:303–316

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Funk VA, Zermoglio MF, Nasir N (1999) Testing the use of specimen collection data and GIS in biodiversity exploration and conservation decision making in Guyana. Biodivers Conserv 8:727–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston K, Rodrigues ASL (2003) Reserve selection in regions with poor biological data. Conserv Biol 17:188–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GDACE (2004) Chapter 8: Biodiversity. In: Gauteng Conservation State of the Environment Report. Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and the Environment, Gauteng Provincial Government

  • Graham CH, Ferrier S, Huettman F, Moritz C, Townsend Peterson A (2004) New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 19:497–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JA, Minter LG, Burger M (2004) Atlas and Red Data book for frogs completed. S Afr J Sci 100:11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JA, Underhill LG, Barnard P (2008) The seminal legacy of the South African Bird Atlas Project. S Afr J Sci 104:82–84

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2001) Categories & criteria (version 3.1). Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland. http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1. Cited 23 April 2009

  • IUCN (2009) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2009.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Cited 15 June 2009

  • IUCN, Conservation International and Nature Serve (2008) An analysis of amphibians on the 2008 IUCN Red List. http://www.iucnredlist.org/amphibians. Cited 21 April 2009

  • Küper W, Sommer JH, Lovett JC, Barthlott W (2006) Deficiency in African plant distribution data—missing pieces of the puzzle. Bot J Linn Soc 150:355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen FW, Bladt J, Rahbek C (2009a) Indicator taxa revisited: useful for conservation planning? Divers Distrib 15:70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen R, Homern T, Prager SD, Maliti H, Roskaft E (2009b) Using the extended quarter degree grid cell system to unify mapping and sharing of biodiversity data. Afr J Ecol 47:382–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenth RV (2006) Java applets for power and sample size [Computer software]. http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power. Cited 26 Feb 2009

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty JP (2001) Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conserv Biol 15:320–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCollin D, Moore L, Sparks T (2000) The Flora of a cultural landscape: environmental determinants of change revealed using archival sources. Biol Conserv 92:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald JH (2009) Handbook of Biological Statistics, 2nd edn. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Minter LR, Harrison JA, Burger M, Braack HH (2004) Introduction. In: Minter LR, Burger M, Harrison JA, Braack HH, Bishop PJ, Kloepfer D (eds) Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series #9. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • New M, Lister D, Hulme M, Makin I (2002) A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Clim Res 21:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell JAN, Simpson DA, Moat J, Kirkup DW, Chantaranothai P, Boyce PC, Bygrave P, Dransfield S, Jebb MHP, Macklin J, Meade C, Middleton DJ, Muasya AM, Prajaksood A, Pendry CA, Pooma R, Suddee S, Wilkin P (2003) Plant collecting spread and densities: their potential impact on biogeographical studies in Thailand. J Biogeogr 30:193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL (2004) Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conserv Biol 18:1677–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy S, Dávalos L (2003) Geographic sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. J Biogeogr 30:1719–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson MP, Barker NP (2006) A technique for evaluating species richness maps generated from collections data. S Afr J Sci 102:78–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson MP, Cumming GS, Erasmus BFN (2010) Getting the most out of atlas data. Divers Distrib 16:363–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romo H, García-Barros E, Lobo JM (2006) Identifying recorded-induced geographic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography 29:873–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinini C, Wilson KA, Boitani L, Grantham H, Possingham HP (2006) Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol Lett 9:1136–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rouget M, Reyers B, Jonas Z, Desmet P, Driver A, Maze K, Egoh B, Cowling RM, Mucina L, Rutherford MC (2004) South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume 1: Terrestrial Component. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Segurado P, Araújo MB (2004) An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J Biogeogr 31:1555–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelly DK, Yurewicz KL, Werner EE, Relyea RA (2003) Estimating decline and distributional change in amphibians. Conserv Biol 17:744–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South African Bird Atlas 2 website, http://sabap2.adu.org.za. Cited 30 July 2010

  • Telfer MG, Preston CD, Rothery P (2002) A general method for measuring relative change in range size from biological atlas data. Biol Conserv 107:99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner AA, De Villiers AL (2007) Chapter 4: amphibians. In: Western Cape State of Biodiversity Report 2007. Scientific Services, CapeNature

  • Tyre AJ, Tenhumberg B, Field SA, Niejalke D, Parris K, Possingham HP (2003) Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecol Appl 13:1790–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Jaarsveld AS, Freitag S, Chown SL, Muller C, Kock S, Hull H, Bellamy C, Krüger M, Endrody-Younga S, Mansell MW, Scholtz CH (1998a) Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279:2106–2108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Jaarsveld AS, Gaston KJ, Chown SL, Freitag S (1998b) Throwing biodiversity out with the binary data? S Afr J Sci 94:210–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rensburg BJ, Erasmus BFN, Van Jaarsveld AS, Gaston KJ, Chown SL (2004) Conservation during times of change: correlations between birds, climate and people in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 100:256–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Margules CR, Hilbert DW (2002) Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area selection. J Bioscience 27:327–338

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Animal Demography Unit of the University of Cape Town for the use of the South African Frog Atlas Project data. The Andrew W. Mellon Postgraduate Mentoring Programme at the University of the Witwatersrand provided financial support. We thank four anonymous reviewers for comments that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS, 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Emily A. Botts, Barend F. N. Erasmus & Graham J. Alexander

Authors
  1. Emily A. Botts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barend F. N. Erasmus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Graham J. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily A. Botts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Botts, E.A., Erasmus, B.F.N. & Alexander, G.J. Geographic sampling bias in the South African Frog Atlas Project: implications for conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv 20, 119–139 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9950-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9950-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation