NatureServe Explorer

NatureServe Explorer
Name	NatureServe Explorer
Type	Biodiversity information system
Founder	NatureServe
Established	1994
Country	United States
Scope	Western Hemisphere biodiversity
Languages	English, Spanish (partial)

NatureServe Explorer

NatureServe Explorer is a web-based biodiversity information system that provides conservation status assessments, species distribution data, and ecological descriptions for plants, animals, and ecosystems. It supports decision-making by conservationists, resource managers, and researchers through standardized rarity ranks, occurrence records, and habitat characterizations. The platform integrates field observations, museum specimens, expert reviews, and governmental datasets to inform planning, permitting, and reporting.

Overview

NatureServe Explorer aggregates conservation data and status assessments that inform regional and national priorities such as those set by United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, and international frameworks including the Convention on Biological Diversity. The system is maintained by NatureServe and collaborates with network members such as state and provincial natural heritage programs like California Department of Fish and Wildlife inventories and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry surveys. Explorer includes standardized rank systems used alongside lists by entities like The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and academic institutions such as Harvard University and University of California, Berkeley.

History and development

Explorer grew from regional natural heritage databases developed in the 1970s and 1980s by organizations including The Nature Conservancy and academic partners like University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In the 1990s, a national consolidation led by NatureServe integrated datasets derived from legacy collections in institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution and the Field Museum of Natural History. Key milestones include digitization initiatives inspired by projects at the Library of Congress and database interoperability efforts following principles from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Over time, Explorer incorporated web mapping, species accounts, and status calculators influenced by conservation science at institutes such as Cornell Lab of Ornithology and Duke University.

Data and methodology

Explorer relies on occurrence records sourced from museum collections like the American Museum of Natural History, herbarium networks at New York Botanical Garden and Kew Gardens, and citizen-science platforms including iNaturalist and the eBird project. Conservation status uses the NatureServe conservation status ranking methodology with subnational, national, and global ranks cross-referenced against assessments from bodies such as the IUCN Red List and listings under laws like the Endangered Species Act and provincial statutes in Canada. Geospatial methods incorporate GIS layers from agencies like the United States Geological Survey and remote-sensing inputs similar to those used by NASA Earth observations. Data quality is supported by peer review from experts affiliated with universities such as University of Florida and museums including the American Museum of Natural History.

Coverage and taxonomy

Coverage emphasizes terrestrial, freshwater, and select marine taxa across the Western Hemisphere, including vertebrates, invertebrates, vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, fungi, and ecological communities. Taxonomic backbones draw on authoritative sources such as Integrated Taxonomic Information System, The Plant List, and specialist monographs from scholars at Smithsonian Institution and the Natural History Museum, London. Explorer aligns nomenclature where possible with global checklists like those managed by Catalogue of Life and integrates regional treatments produced by institutions including Missouri Botanical Garden and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Uses and applications

Stakeholders use Explorer for conservation planning by agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery planning, environmental impact assessments undertaken by firms contracted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and land-management decisions by organizations like National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy. Academic researchers from institutions including Stanford University and Yale University use Explorer data for ecological modeling, while NGOs such as Wildlife Conservation Society and Conservation International employ it for prioritization and fundraising. Private-sector applications include natural-resource permitting reviewed by companies interacting with regulators like Bureau of Land Management and consultants working with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Governance and partnerships

NatureServe governs Explorer through a network model coordinating state and provincial natural heritage programs, conservation NGOs, and academic partners. The network includes member programs such as Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department conservation databases, and provincial partners like Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre. Funding and collaborations span foundations such as MacArthur Foundation, federal grants from agencies like National Science Foundation, and partnerships with international entities including Nature Conservancy Global affiliates. Data sharing agreements respect policies of repositories such as the Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Criticisms and limitations

Critics note geographic and taxonomic gaps where underfunded regions and understudied taxa—often invertebrates, fungi, and cryptic plants—are poorly represented compared with well-studied vertebrates and vascular plants, echoing concerns raised in literature from Global Biodiversity Information Facility and analyses by scholars at University of Oxford. Data sensitivity, especially for rare species occurrences, generates tension between open data proponents represented by Creative Commons advocates and privacy or protection policies used by agencies like U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, taxonomic revisions published in journals such as Systematic Biology and Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution can outpace updates, creating synonymy and classification discrepancies noted by contributors from institutions like Smithsonian Institution and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Category:Biodiversity databases