Closing the biodiversity observation-to-action loop
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Citizen science observations are abundant, but conservation requires turning uneven records into reliable predictions and directing new surveys to where information is missing. We developed a biodiversity platform for Japan that is updated monthly and integrates 2.32 million records to predict 8,297 species across seven taxonomic groups. Shared representation models outperformed species-specific models in four groups and extended predictions to species with few records. Five independent datasets, including structured monitoring, environmental DNA and complete forest inventories, confirmed that the models ranked observed species and occupied sites above alternatives, with median AUCs of 0.724 to 0.894 across sites and 0.650 to 0.841 across species. For any user-selected area, the platform returns candidate species, distribution predictions, a biodiversity map corrected for uneven observation effort, a conservation priority map for native species and a map recommending where to survey next. This map highlights places where species with few records are predicted to occur despite limited sampling. Independent observations showed that areas ranked highly by this predicted potential contained many such species, indicating that model predictions can help direct surveys toward knowledge gaps. New observations are incorporated into monthly updates, creating a national feedback system connecting citizen science, local conservation decisions and future surveys.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Closing the biodiversity observation-to-action loop
- Date Crossref
- 31/08/2026
- Éditeur
- openRxiv
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.