Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Caution over the use of ecological big data for conservation

Matters Arising to this article was published on 07 July 2021

The Original Article was published on 24 July 2019

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Machine-learning-classified fishing effort data (0.1° × 0.1° grid cells) used to evaluate the risk to sharks from pelagic longline and purse seine fishing in waters under Australian jurisdiction.

Data availability

The results of the manual vessel review are available on GitHub (https://github.com/alharry/sharkMA).

References

  1. 1.

    Cheruvelil, K. S. & Soranno, P. A. Data-intensive ecological research is catalyzed by open science and team science. Bioscience 68, 813–822 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kelling, S. et al. Data-intensive science: a new paradigm for biodiversity studies. Bioscience 59, 613–620 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Queiroz, N. et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature 572, 461–466 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Clarke, R. Big data, big risks. Inf. Syst. J. 26, 77–90 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kroodsma, D. A. et al. Tracking the global footprint of fisheries. Science 359, 904–908 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Braccini, M., Molony, B. & Blay, N. Patterns in abundance and size of sharks in northwestern Australia: cause for optimism. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 72–82 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Larcombe, J., Caton, A., Wiliams, D. M. & Speare, P. Western Tuna and Billfish Fisheries Research (Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra 1997).

  8. 8.

    Larcombe, J. & Begg, G. Fishery Status Reports 2007. Status of Fish Stocks Managed by the Australian Government (Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra 2007).

  9. 9.

    Hobsbawn, P. I., Patterson, H. M. & Blake, S. A. P. Australian National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (ABARES, Canberra 2020).

  10. 10.

    Kaplan, R. M., Chambers, D. A. & Glasgow, R. E. Big data and large sample size: a cautionary note on the potential for bias. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7, 342–346 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bayraktarov, E. et al. Do big unstructured biodiversity data mean more knowledge? Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 239 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Braccini, M., Blay, N., Hesp, A. & Molony, B. Resource Assessment Report Temperate Demersal Elasmobranch Resource of Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 294 (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Perth, 2018).

  13. 13.

    Roff, G., Brown, C. J., Priest, M. A. & Mumby, P. J. Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century. Commun. Biol. 1, 223 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hampton, S. E. et al. Big data and the future of ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 156–162 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank P. Orange and the WAFMRL Library for assistance in researching historical fishing records.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.V.H. carried out the analysis and wrote the first draft. A.V.H. and J.M.B. conceived the idea, interpreted the results, and edited and revised the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alastair V. Harry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figure 1, and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harry, A.V., Braccini, J.M. Caution over the use of ecological big data for conservation. Nature 595, E17–E19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03463-w

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links