Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing
Abstract Each year, hundreds of scientific works with species' geographical data are published. However, these data can be challenging to identify, collect, and integrate into analytical workflows due to differences in reporting structures, storage formats, and the omission or inconsistency of...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10148 |
| _version_ | 1797776490492854272 |
|---|---|
| author | Andry Castro Joana Ribeiro Luís Reino César Capinha |
| author_facet | Andry Castro Joana Ribeiro Luís Reino César Capinha |
| author_sort | Andry Castro |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Each year, hundreds of scientific works with species' geographical data are published. However, these data can be challenging to identify, collect, and integrate into analytical workflows due to differences in reporting structures, storage formats, and the omission or inconsistency of relevant information and terminology. These difficulties tend to be aggravated for non‐native species, given varying attitudes toward non‐native species reporting and the existence of an additional layer of invasion‐related terminology. Thus, our objective is to identify the current practices and drivers of the geographical reporting of non‐native species in the scientific literature. We conducted an online survey targeting authors of species regional checklists—a widely published source of biogeographical data—where we asked about reporting habits and perceptions regarding non‐native taxa. The responses and the relationships between response variables and predictors were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression models. With a response rate of 22.4% (n = 113), we found that nearly half of respondents (45.5%) do not always report non‐native taxa, and of those who report, many (44.7%) do not always differentiate them from native taxa. Close to half of respondents (46.4%) also view the terminology of biological invasions as an obstacle to the reporting of non‐native taxa. The ways in which checklist information is provided are varied, but mainly correspond to descriptive text and embedded tables with non‐native species (when given) mentioned alongside native species. Only 13.4% of respondents mention to always provide the data in automation‐friendly formats or its publication in biodiversity data repositories. Data on the distribution of non‐native species are essential for monitoring global biodiversity change and preventing biological invasions. Despite its importance our results show an urgent need to improve the frequency, accessibility, and consistency of publication of these data. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T22:51:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-168644d6ba0c41b496445dc39b3505c3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T22:51:43Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-168644d6ba0c41b496445dc39b3505c32023-07-20T08:50:56ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582023-05-01135n/an/a10.1002/ece3.10148Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listingAndry Castro0Joana Ribeiro1Luís Reino2César Capinha3Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Branca Edmée Marques Lisboa PortugalCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Campus de Vairão Universidade do Porto Vairão PortugalCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Campus de Vairão Universidade do Porto Vairão PortugalCentro de Estudos Geográficos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Branca Edmée Marques Lisboa PortugalAbstract Each year, hundreds of scientific works with species' geographical data are published. However, these data can be challenging to identify, collect, and integrate into analytical workflows due to differences in reporting structures, storage formats, and the omission or inconsistency of relevant information and terminology. These difficulties tend to be aggravated for non‐native species, given varying attitudes toward non‐native species reporting and the existence of an additional layer of invasion‐related terminology. Thus, our objective is to identify the current practices and drivers of the geographical reporting of non‐native species in the scientific literature. We conducted an online survey targeting authors of species regional checklists—a widely published source of biogeographical data—where we asked about reporting habits and perceptions regarding non‐native taxa. The responses and the relationships between response variables and predictors were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression models. With a response rate of 22.4% (n = 113), we found that nearly half of respondents (45.5%) do not always report non‐native taxa, and of those who report, many (44.7%) do not always differentiate them from native taxa. Close to half of respondents (46.4%) also view the terminology of biological invasions as an obstacle to the reporting of non‐native taxa. The ways in which checklist information is provided are varied, but mainly correspond to descriptive text and embedded tables with non‐native species (when given) mentioned alongside native species. Only 13.4% of respondents mention to always provide the data in automation‐friendly formats or its publication in biodiversity data repositories. Data on the distribution of non‐native species are essential for monitoring global biodiversity change and preventing biological invasions. Despite its importance our results show an urgent need to improve the frequency, accessibility, and consistency of publication of these data.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10148biodiversity data reportingbiogeographical changesbiological invasionsglobal changesinvasive alien speciesnon‐native taxa |
| spellingShingle | Andry Castro Joana Ribeiro Luís Reino César Capinha Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing Ecology and Evolution biodiversity data reporting biogeographical changes biological invasions global changes invasive alien species non‐native taxa |
| title | Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing |
| title_full | Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing |
| title_fullStr | Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing |
| title_short | Who is reporting non‐native species and how? A cross‐expert assessment of practices and drivers of non‐native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing |
| title_sort | who is reporting non native species and how a cross expert assessment of practices and drivers of non native biodiversity reporting in species regional listing |
| topic | biodiversity data reporting biogeographical changes biological invasions global changes invasive alien species non‐native taxa |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10148 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andrycastro whoisreportingnonnativespeciesandhowacrossexpertassessmentofpracticesanddriversofnonnativebiodiversityreportinginspeciesregionallisting AT joanaribeiro whoisreportingnonnativespeciesandhowacrossexpertassessmentofpracticesanddriversofnonnativebiodiversityreportinginspeciesregionallisting AT luisreino whoisreportingnonnativespeciesandhowacrossexpertassessmentofpracticesanddriversofnonnativebiodiversityreportinginspeciesregionallisting AT cesarcapinha whoisreportingnonnativespeciesandhowacrossexpertassessmentofpracticesanddriversofnonnativebiodiversityreportinginspeciesregionallisting |