Natural history collections represent billions of physical specimens globally and are essential for understanding biodiversity patterns over time. However, they currently face widespread decline due to a variety of factors including lack of funding, expert staffing and redirection of resources towards public-centric exhibits. One of the most significant threats to collections is the limited capacity to digitize physical specimens and extend their use broadly.
This global study investigated the gaps and spatial biases within publicly accessible natural history records. Researchers focussed on voucher specimens (physical specimens used for comparative reference within collections) available via GBIF. They assessed more than 40 million specimen-based occurrence records across six taxonomic groups and applied spatial statistics to map areas of high and low digitization coverage. Researchers then compared the presence of records identified in GBIF with known areas of sampling to distinguish between genuinely unsampled regions and those where specimens exist but are undigitized or undisclosed.
The authors concluded that many regions that appeared as unexplored in GBIF records may instead reflect a lack of digitization capacity, particularly in Global South countries. They propose using the term “biodiversity blind spot” as a more accurate and constructive alternative, aiming to draw attention to these gaps and help direct funding toward digitization efforts in under-resourced nations.