title: Data acquisition for conservation assessments: is the effort worth it?
abstract: When identifying conservation priorities, the accuracy of conservation assessments is constrained by the quality of data available. Despite previous efforts exploring how to deal with imperfect datasets, little is known about how data uncertainty translates into errors in conservation planning outcomes. Here, we evaluate the magnitude of commission and omission error, effectiveness and efficiency of conservation planning outcomes derived from three datasets with increasing data quality. We demonstrate that investing in data acquisition might not always be the best strategy as the magnitude of errors introduced by new sites/species can exceed the benefits gained. There was a trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency due to poorly sampled rare species. Given that data acquisition is limited by the high cost and time required, we recommend focusing on improving the quality of data for those species with the highest level of uncertainty (rare species) when acquiring new data.
authors.affiliation: Australian Rivers Institute and Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge, National Environmental Research Program Northern Australia Hub, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia. virgilio.hermoso@gmail.com
authors.forename: Virgilio
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Hermoso
authors.forename: Mark J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Kennard
authors.forename: Simon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Linke
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000379:methods*; D016208:Databases, Factual; D005399:Fishes; D005618:Fresh Water; D015233:Models, Statistical; D012107:Research Design; D012306:Risk; D062206:Spatial Analysis; D013223:Statistics as Topic
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2009 Apr;12(4):293-301
references.pmid: 19243409
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2006 Oct;9(10):1136-45
references.pmid: 16972877
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Dec;26(12):634-40
references.pmid: 21899914
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2008 Feb;11(2):139-50
references.pmid: 18031554
references.citation: Nature. 2000 May 11;405(6783):243-53
references.pmid: 10821285
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2006 Jan;9(1):2-11; discussion 11-4
references.pmid: 16958861
references.citation: Conserv Biol. 2006 Dec;20(6):1688-97
references.pmid: 17181804
references.citation: Syst Biol. 2002 Apr;51(2):331-63
references.pmid: 12028736