Introduction

Uruguay encompasses a peculiar area of South America located within the Pampa Province of the Neotropical Region (Morrone 2014). Both the continental and marine territories currently covered by Uruguay are known to represent rich areas of convergence of diverse environments as heterogeneous as the Amazon, the Pampa, Patagonia and Subantarctic subregions (Morrone 2006, Calliari et al. 2003). For example, Grela (2004) suggests the existence of a phytogeographic longitudinal division of the country’s territory, with a western area characterised by the occurrence of Paranaense and Chaco species and an eastern area marked by different Paranaense species and relicts of flora from the Brazilian Cerrado (Grela and Brussa 2003). Additionally, Arballo and Cravino (1999) and Gonzalez and Martínez-Lanfranco (2010) describe the similarities between the bird and mammal assemblages of Uruguay and the species from adjacent subregions, indicating the spatial convergence of lineages from Brazilian and Andino-Patagonian origins. The reptiles and amphibians, on the other hand, are the result of lineage radiations that come from subregions as contrasting as Patagonia and the Amazon (Pincheira-Donoso 2010). Given these unique biodiversity features, the geographic region, encompassed by the territory of Uruguay, has been proposed to represent a differentiated unit of Pampa, defined by the unique composition of its flora and fauna (Chebataroff 1942, Dos Santos et al. 2016). Therefore, it is surprising that these biogeographic features, combined with the country’s small territorial area (176,220 km2) and its relatively uniform elevational topography (513 m maximum altitude), remain one of the poorest-known across the Americas as a whole. These limitations apply fundamentally to any measure of biodiversity, such as the patterns of distribution of species-richness, endemism and threatened species (Canavero et al. 2010, Soutullo et al. 2013). Collectively, such lack of information hampers any attempts to assess, strategically study and manage the biodiversity and the natural resources of the country.

Currently, national biodiversity databases are unavailable and, thus, the dominant proportion of the primary biodiversity data produced in the country is highly dispersed and difficult to access for the wider scientific community and for policy-makers. Likewise, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) reveals that Uruguay ranks amongst the countries of America with the lowest levels of available data on their biodiversity (Fig. 1). In the GBIF platform (as of 7 June 2019), 73.5% of the records belong to the Aves Class, all of which proceed from the eBird initiative. As shown in Fig. 1 , the overwhelming contribution of records provided by eBird to GBIF highlights the enormous role that data, provided by citizens, play in the development of global biodiversity datasets, while at the same time, points out the critical taxonomical biases encountered in GBIF for the region.

Figure 1.  

Distribution of the number of occurrence records available in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (as of 7 June 2019) for each country of Latin America, relative to the number of records that have been submitted by eBird users. The respective proportion is shown in the green scale.

General description

Project description

Sampling methods

Geographic coverage

Description: 

The database includes all native and extant species of tetrapods reported in any area within the borders of Uruguay. The occurrence records are not evenly distributed through space as a result of oversampling in some areas and of limited (or no) sampling in other areas (Fig. 2a). When we consider the records of the last 30 years, the geographic coverage amongst groups reduces enormously and becomes dominated by birds (Fig. 2b).

Figure 2.  

Distribution of the (a) total number of occurrence records (N = 69,380) from species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals from Uruguay and (b) occurrence records from the last 30 years. National routes are shown in black. Projection WGS1984 UTM zone 21S.

Higher numbers of records are seen in the coast area, whilst the centre of the country holds low sampling densities. The most sampled area of Uruguay is in Montevideo (the capital of the country), followed by the surroundings of Maldonado and Rocha cities, all Atlantic coast areas. We observed this pattern particularly in Aves which, despite being the most sampled group, with 87.4% of the database records, they are strongly spatially biased. Reptiles, on the other hand, with the least number of records in the database, cover the Uruguayan territory better than any other tetrapod group.

After our data collation, we can observe some areas of the country that remain systematically ignored. This disparity in sampling is mostly due to the lack of systematisation in the efforts of zoological exploration of the national territory and responds to the realisation of research projects, faunistic inventories or intensive occasional sampling in a few locations, generally near the main population centres or close to easily accessible areas (Carreira et al. 2005, Soutullo et al. 2013). As can be seen in Fig. 2, areas with more sampling effort tend to be located adjacent to national routes. Nevertheless, this is the first country-wide effort aimed at tackling biodiversity data being lost. In the future, there is substantial work to be done on digitisation and tactical direction of new sampling efforts to enhance the territorial coverage to develop a more accurate picture of the distribution of biodiversity in the country. Therefore, a critical first contribution of the Uruguayan Consortium of Biodiversity Data will involve establishing areas where efforts are urgently needed at the expense of areas that have been historically oversampled.

Taxonomic coverage

Description: 

The database incudes 69,380, representing 129 families, 446 genera and 673 species: 51 amphibians, 68 reptiles, 437 birds and 117 mammals. The taxonomic coverage is uneven (Fig. 3). For instance, ten bird species make up to 14% of the database records, while 10% of the tetrapod species have only been observed/collected once. Likewise, occurrence records within groups are dominated by their most sampled species, such as Boana pulchella (N = 248) and Pseudis minuta (N = 195) in Amphibia, Philodryas patagoniensis (N = 176) and Erythrolamprus poecilogyrus (N = 139) in Reptilia, Pitangus sulphuratus (N = 1191) and Furnarius rufus (N = 1180) in Aves and Akodon azarae (N = 207) and Scapteromys tumidus (N = 187) in Mammalia.

Figure 3.  

Distribution of the number of occurrence records and number of species collated for each class of the tetrapod group.

Traits coverage

Temporal coverage

Notes: 

The records included in Biodiversidata cover samples reported in Uruguay during the period of 1806–2018 (Fig. 4). We observed that occurrence records have been collected mostly intermittently within groups, with a continuously increasing tendency since the beginning of the 20th Century. The steady increase towards the latter half of the century is in part a result of the creation of the School of Science (1945) and several field work expeditions during the next decades that resulted in an increase in the production of research articles (Soutullo et al. 2013). In the case of the records collected from literature, there was a high number lacking date of collection or observation. For instance, a large number of the records collated from Carreira et al. (2005), a detailed scientific monograph on the reptiles of Uruguay, provides location but no date associated to the records. We aim to promote the need to associate spatial records to dates of collection of the datapoints, as this approach is expected to facilitate the development of scientific-based decisions when implementing environmental policies (Peterson et al. 2018). Overall, as was mentioned above, numerous other literature sources and specimens recorded in the country yet need to become digitally accessible, hence, Uruguay will face a great challenge in "rescuing" these data in the future to prevent them being lost.

Figure 4.  

Occurrence records of tetrapod orders reported in Uruguay over time, divided by amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

In particular, bird occurrence records are disproportionally superior in the database (i.e. 87.4% of total number of records), presenting an intense period of sampling effort between 2000 and 2016, mostly derived from citizen science efforts from eBird users (collected from GBIF). Regardless of the spatial bias of these records, it is valuable to note the significant contribution of local ornithologists and birdwatchers (i.e. Aves Uruguay) to the international initiative, which probably stands as the richest and oldest practice of data-sharing known in Uruguay.

Collection data

Usage rights

Data resources

Additional information

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

References

Abreu M (2015)
Primer registro de la gaviota de Franklin Leucophaeus pipixcan (Wagler, 1831) (Aves: Laridae) en Uruguay
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay
24
:
22
‑
27
. URL: http://szu.org.uy/boletin/vol24_1/22_27_vol24_1.pdf
Andrade-Núñez MJ, Aide TM (2010)
Effects of habitat and landscape characteristics on medium and large mammal species richness and composition in northern Uruguay
.
Zoologia
27
(
6
). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702010000600012
Arballo E, Cravino J (1999)
Aves del Uruguay: Manual Ornitologico
.
1
.
Editorial Hemisferio Sur
,
466
pp. [ISBN
9974-645-08-5
]
Azpiroz AB, Menéndez JL, Jaramillo A, Presa D, Calimares C, Saralegui A, Abente JS (2012)
New information on the distribution and status of birds in Uruguay
.
Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club
132
(
1
):
46
‑
54
. URL: http://biostor.org/reference/246835
Bardier C, Maneyro R (2015)
Inventory and conservation priorities for amphibian species from Cerro Verde (Rocha, Uruguay) and surroundings
.
Check List
11
(
2
):
1
‑
8
. https://doi.org/10.15560/11.2.1581
Borteiro C, Prigioni C, García JE, Tedros M, Gutiérrez F, Kolenc F (2006)
Geographic distribution and conservation status of Caiman latirostris (Crocodylia, Alligatoridae) in Uruguay
.
Journal of Herpetology
5
(
2
):
97
‑
108
. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9079.v5i2p97-108
Borteiro C, Gutiérrez F, Tedros M, Kolenc F (2009)
Food habits of the broad‐snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris: Crocodylia, Alligatoridae) in northwestern Uruguay
.
Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment
44
(
1
):
31
‑
36
. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650520802507572
Borteiro C, Kolenc F, Verdes JM (2013)
Aggregative behaviour in the fossorial lizard Amphisbaena darwinii (Squamata, Amphisbaenidae)
.
Cuadernos de herpetología
27
(
1
):
57
‑
58
. URL: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/26859
Borteiro C, Kolenc F, Prigioni C (2015)
A new noteworthy record of Phrynops williamsi Rhodin & Mittermeier (Testudines, Chelidae) in Uruguay
.
Cuadernos de herpetología
29
(
1
):
95
‑
96
. URL: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/56007
Bou N (2013)
Distribución potencial de tres especies de Leopardus (Carnivora: Felidae) para Uruguay
.
Universidad de la República (Uruguay)
URL: https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/bitstream/20.500.12008/6419/1/uy24-16158.pdf
Calliari D, Defeo O, Cervetto G, Gómez M, Giménez L, Scarabino F, Brazeiro A, Norbis W (2003)
Marine Life of Uruguay: Critical Update and Priorities for Future Research
.
Gayana (Concepción)
67
:
341
‑
370
. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-65382003000200015
Canavero A, Brazeiro A, Camargo A, da Rosa I, Maneyro R, Núñez D (2010)
Amphibian diversity of Uruguay: Background knowledge, inventory completeness and sampling coverage
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica de Uruguay
19
:
2
‑
19
. URL: http://www.szu.org.uy/boletin/vol19/1_19_vol19.pdf
Carreira S, Meneghel M, Achaval F (2005)
Reptiles de Uruguay
.
Sección Zoología Vertebrados, Departamento de Biología Animal, Facultad de Ciencias
[ISBN
9974002842
]
Carreira S, Lombardo I (2006)
Tomodon dorsatus (NCN). Uruguay
.
Herpetological Review
37
(
1
):
110
. URL: https://ssarherps.org/herpetological-review-pdfs
Carreira S, Achaval F (2007)
Sobre la presencia de Waglerophis merremi (Wagner, 1824) en Uruguay (Reptilia: Squamata)
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica de Uruguay
16
:
32
‑
35
. URL: http://www.szu.org.uy/boletin/vol16/32_35_vol16.pdf
Carreira S, Lombardo I, Achaval-Coppes F (2012)
Nuevos registros de ofidios poco conocidos en Uruguay (Reptilia: Squamata: Serpentes)
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay (2ª época)
21
:
70
‑
74
. URL: http://www.szu.org.uy/boletin/vol21/70_74_vol21.pdf
Chamberlain S (2018)
rredlist: 'IUCN' Red List Client. R package
.
0.5.0.
. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rredlist
Chamberlain S, Szoecs E, Foster Z, Arendsee Z, Boettiger C, Ram K, Bartomeus I, Baumgartner J, O'Donnell J, Oksanen J, Greshake Tzovaras B, Marchand P, Tran V (2018)
taxize: Taxonomic information from around the web. R package
.
0.9.3
. URL: https://github.com/ropensci/taxize
Chebataroff J (1942)
La vegetación del Uruguay y sus relaciones fitogeográficas con la del resto de la América del Sur
.
Revista Geográfica
2
(
4/5/6
):
49
‑
90
. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41888194
Colina M, Arrieta D, Carreira S (2012)
Ophiodes intermedius Boulenger, 1894 (Squamata: Anguidae): Uruguay distribution extension with conservation comments
.
Check List
8
(
5
):
896
‑
897
. https://doi.org/10.15560/8.5.896
de Giorgi Peirano A (2016)
Diversidad de aves y mamíferos presentes en tres campos de soja en el departamento de Colonia y su relación con el daño a dicho cultivo
.
Universidad de la República
URL: https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/bitstream/20.500.12008/8872/1/uy24-18205.pdf
Dos Santos DA, Emmerich D, Molineri C, Nieto C, Domínguez E (2016)
On the position of Uruguay in the South American biogeographical puzzle: insights from Ephemeroptera (Insecta)
.
Journal of Biogeography
43
(
2
):
361
‑
371
. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12623
Elgue E, Maneyro R (2017)
Reproductive biology in a Uruguayan population of Elachistocleis bicolor (Guérin-Meneville, 1838)(Anura, Microhylidae)
.
Cuadernos de herpetología
31
(
1
):
5
‑
10
. URL: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/60099
Gonzalez EM, Martínez-Lanfranco JA (2010) Zoogeografía de los mamíferos de Uruguay.
Mamíferos de Uruguay. Guía de campo e introducción a su estudio y conservación
.
Banda Oriental, MNHN y Vida Silvestre Uruguay
,
6
pp. [ISBN
978 9974-1-0674-1
].
González-Paredes D, Vélez-Rubio G, Hahn AT, Caraccio MN, Estrades A (2017)
New records of Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) (Testudines, Cheloniidae) provide evidence that Uruguayan waters are the southernmost limit of distribution for the species in the western Atlantic Ocean
.
Check List
13
(
6
):
863
‑
869
. https://doi.org/10.15560/13.6.863
Grattarola F (2015)
Aportes de la ecología molecular al estudio de mamíferos en Uruguay
.
Universidad de la República
,
Montevideo, Uruguay
. URL: https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/bitstream/20.500.12008/17162/1/uy24-17527.pdf
Grattarola F (2019)
rBiodiversidata: R scripts
.
1.0.0
.
Zenodo
. Release date:
2019-4-16
. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2642135
Grela I, Brussa C (2003)
Relevamiento florístico y análisis comparativo de comunidades arbóreas de Sierra de Ríos (Cerro Largo-Uruguay)
.
Agrociencia
7
(
2
):
11
‑
26
. URL: http://www.fagro.edu.uy/~agrociencia/index.php/directorio/article/view/364
Grela I (2004)
Geografía florística de las especies arbóreas de Uruguay: propuesta para la delimitación de dendrofloras
.
PEDECIBA - Universidad de la República
,
Montevideo
.
Kolenc F, Borteiro C, Baldo D, Ferraro D, Prigioni C (2009)
The tadpoles and advertisement calls of Pleurodema bibroni Tschudi and Pleurodema kriegi (Müller), with notes on their geographic distribution and conservation status (Amphibia, Anura, Leiuperidae)
.
Zootaxa
1969
:
1
‑
35
. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.185006
Kolenc F, Borteiro C, González EM, Barrasso DA, Prigioni C (2012)
Recent findings of the declining frog Pleurodema bibroni Tschudi, 1838 (Anura: Leiuperidae) in Uruguay
.
Herpetology Notes
5
:
181
‑
183
. URL: http://www.herpetologynotes.seh-herpetology.org/Volume5_PDFs/Kolenc_Herpetology_Notes_Volume5_pages181-183.pdf
Kwet A, Solé M, Miranda T, Melchiors J, Naya D, Maneyro R (2002)
First record of Hyla albopunctata Spix, 1824 (Anura: Hylidae) in Uruguay, with comments on the advertisement call
.
Boletín de la Asociación Herpetológica Española
13
:
15
‑
19
.
Lareschi M, Venzal JM, Arzua M, González E (2006)
Fleas of small mammals in Uruguay, with new host and distribution records
.
Comparative Parasitology
73
(
2
):
263
‑
269
. https://doi.org/10.1654/4193.1
Laufer G, Piñeiro-Guerra JM, Pereira-Garbero R, Barreneche JM, Ferrero R (2009)
Distribution extension of Scinax aromothyella (Anura, Hylidae)
.
Biota Neotropica
9
(
2
):
275
‑
277
. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032009000200028
Maneyro R, Naya DE, Baldo D (2008)
A new species of Melanophryniscus (Anura, Bufonidae) from Uruguay
.
Iheringia. Série Zoologia
98
(
2
):
189
‑
192
. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0073-47212008000200003
Martínez-Lanfranco JA, Rudolf JC, Queirolo D (2010)
Puma concolor (Carnivora, Felidae) en Uruguay: situación local y contexto regional
.
Mastozoología Neotropical
17
(
1
):
153
‑
159
. URL: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=45713277018
Masciadri S, Da Rosa I, Alfaro M (2007)
Diversidad biológica del Bosque Costero en la localidad Perla de Rocha
.
IV Congreso Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas
,
Trinidad, Florida
.
Montero R (2016)
On the validity of several Argentinian species of Amphisbaena (Squamata, Amphisbaenidae)
.
Journal of Herpetology
50
(
4
):
642
‑
653
. https://doi.org/10.1670/15-048
Morrone JJ (2006)
Biogeographic areas and transition zones of Latin America and the Caribbean islands based on panbiogeographic and cladistic analyses of the entomofauna
.
Annu. Rev. Entomol.
51
:
467
‑
494
. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130447
Morrone JJ (2014)
Biogeographical regionalisation of the Neotropical region
.
Zootaxa
3782
(
1
):
1
‑
110
. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3782.1.1
Naya DE, Achaval F (2006)
Nuevos registros de especies poco comunes de Pinnipedia y primer registro de Arctocephalus gazella (Peters, 1875) (Pinnipedia: Otariidae) para el Uruguay
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica de Uruguay
15
:
23
‑
27
. URL: http://www.szu.org.uy/boletin/vol15/23_27_vol15.pdf
Núñez D, Maneyro R, Langone J, de Sa RO (2004)
Distribución geográfica de la fauna de anfibios del Uruguay
.
Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service
1
‑
34
. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.23317515.134.1
Peterson AT, Asase A, Canhos DAL, de Souza S, Wieczorek J (2018)
Data Leakage and Loss in Biodiversity Informatics
.
Biodiversity Data Journal
6
https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.6.e26826
Pincheira-Donoso D (2010)
The untold story on the ecological and phylogenetic complexity of the Uruguayan reptile fauna
.
Zootaxa
2354
(
1
):
67
‑
68
. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2354.1.6
Prigioni C, Borteiro C, Kolenc F (2011)
Amphibia and Reptilia, Quebrada de los Cuervos, Departamento de Treinta y Tres, Uruguay
.
Check List
7
(
6
):
763
‑
767
. https://doi.org/10.15560/11021
Prigioni C, Borteiro C, Kolenc F, Colina M, González EM (2013)
Geographic distribution and apparent decline of Crotalus durissus terrificus (Laurenti, 1768; Serpentes, Viperidae) in Uruguay
.
Cuadernos de Herpetología
27
(
2
):
163
‑
1625
. URL: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/38558
Prigioni C, Villalba J, Sappa A, González J (2018)
Confirmación de la presencia del mono aullador negro (Alouatta caraya) (Mammalia, Primates, Atelidae) en el Uruguay
.
Acta Zoológica Platense
1
(
10
):
1
‑
11
. URL: http://actazoologicaplatense.blogspot.com/2018/09/acta-zoologica-platense-alouatta_17.html
Queirolo D (2016)
Diversidade e padrões de distribuição de mamíferos dos campos do Uruguai e sul do Brasil.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay
25
(
2
):
92
‑
247
. URL: http://szu.org.uy/journal/index.php/Bol_SZU/article/view/11
Rodríguez-Cajarville MJ, Arballo E, Gambarotta JC (2017)
First documented records of Eastern Kingbird, Tyrannus tyrannus Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Tyrannidae) Uruguay
.
Check List
13
(
4
):
169
‑
172
. https://doi.org/10.15560/13.4.169
Rodríguez-Mazzini R, Azpiroz AB, Báez F, Bonifacino M, Molina B, Prigioni C (2001)
Evaluaciones ecológicas rápidas aplicadas a la Reserva de Biosfera Bañados del Este. Technical Report
.
PROBIDES: Documento de Trabajo N36
URL: http://www.probides.org.uy/publica/dt/DT36.pdf
Santana DJ, de Souza Queiroz S, Wanderley PS, de Avelar São-Pedro V, Leite FSF, Garda AA (2013)
Calls and tadpoles of the species of Lysapsus (Anura, Hylidae, Pseudae)
.
Amphibia-Reptilia
34
(
2
):
201
‑
215
. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002885
Sarroca M, Rodríguez-Gallego L, Conde D (2009)
La Laguna de las Nutrias: un ecosistema único en la costa de Uruguay. Technical Report
.
Informe técnico de la Sección Limnología, Facultad de Ciencias
.
Soutullo A, Clavijo C, Martínez-Lanfranco J (Eds) (2013)
Especies prioritarias para la conservación en Uruguay. Vertebrados, moluscos continentales y plantas vasculares
.
SNAP/DINAMA/MVOTMA & DICYT/MEC
,
Montevideo
,
222
pp. [ISBN
978-9974-8259-7-0
]
Vaz-Canosa P, Rodríguez-Cajarville MJ (2015)
Primer registro de Buteo brachyurus (Aves: Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) para Uruguay
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay
24
(
1
):
28
‑
32
. URL: http://szu.org.uy/boletin/vol24_1/28_32_vol24_1.pdf
Velasco-Charpentier C, Pizarro-Mora F, Estrades A, Veléz-Rubio GM (2016)
Epibiontes en juveniles de tortugas carey Eretmochelys imbricata varadas en la costa del Departamento de Rocha, Uruguay
.
Revista de biología marina y oceanografía
51
(
2
):
449
‑
453
. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-19572016000200022
Verrastro L, Schossler M, Silva C (2006)
Liolaemus occipitalis
.
Herpetological Review
37
(
4
). URL: https://ssarherps.org/herpetological-review-pdfs/
Verrastro L, Maneyro R, Da Silva CM, Farias I (2017)
A new species of lizard of the L. wiegmannii group (Iguania: Liolaemidae) from the Uruguayan Savanna
.
Zootaxa
4294
(
4
):
443
‑
461
. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4294.4.4
Villamil J (2014)
Lista sistemática de la fauna de reptiles de La Colorada Montevideo, Uruguay
.
Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica de Uruguay (2ª época)
23
(
2
):
85
‑
95
. URL: http://szu.org.uy/boletin/vol23_2/85_95_vol23_2.pdf
Wieczorek J, Bloom D, Guralnick R, Blum S, Döring M, Giovanni R, Robertson T, Vieglais D (2012)
Darwin Core: An evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard
.
PLoS One
7
(
1
):
e29715
. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029715
Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten J, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne P, Bouwman J, Brookes A, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo I, Dumon O, Edmunds S, Evelo C, Finkers R, Gonzalez-Beltran A, Gray AG, Groth P, Goble C, Grethe J, Heringa J, ’t Hoen PC, Hooft R, Kuhn T, Kok R, Kok J, Lusher S, Martone M, Mons A, Packer A, Persson B, Rocca-Serra P, Roos M, van Schaik R, Sansone S, Schultes E, Sengstag T, Slater T, Strawn G, Swertz M, Thompson M, van der Lei J, van Mulligen E, Velterop J, Waagmeester A, Wittenburg P, Wolstencroft K, Zhao J, Mons B (2016)
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
.
Scientific Data
3
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Supplementary material