TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
PROBLEM STATEMENT
FRAMEWORK
Building a Network: Empowering Communication Among Distributed Cooperators
Vocabulary Considerations
Content Elements of a Distributed Information System for Invasive Species
Support Needs for Pilot Products
Principles for Registry DatabasesPROTOTYPE FOR AN IABIN PILOT NETWORK FOR INVASIVE SPECIES
IABIN Pilot Projects
Funding and Time LinesSUMMARY
Questions to be Addressed by the Pilot
APPENDIX 1: Santa Barbara IABIN Invasive Species Workshop
Participants
APPENDIX 2: Suggested Structure of Databases to be Provided
APPENDIX 3: Some Existing Sources of Information on Invasive Species
Agency Reports
Electronic Resources
U.S. Department of Agriculture Resources
Primarily Operational Databases
Journal Articles
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) was mandated in the action plan arising from the Santa Cruz (Bolivia) Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development to promote compatible means of collection, communication and exchange of information relevant to decision-making and education on biodiversity conservation. IABIN experts, in various consultations, agreed that implementation of IABIN could best proceed through initiating a series of pilot projects on themes or areas of concern to a number of countries throughout the Americas would best demonstrate the value which IABIN can add to the decision-making and education processes. While a number of themes were suggested as important, invasive species were identified as a priority for international information network. Invasive species are of immediate concern to a number of present and potential IABIN cooperators; they have huge ecological and economic impacts, and a substantial body of scientific knowledge exists which could be assembled into a useful information framework.
In October, 1998, a workshop was held in Santa Barbara, designed in part to assembly a small group of experts on invasive vascular plants and freshwater fish in the Americas and to assess the extent and usefulness for scientific analysis of existing information on a hemispheric basis, to identify some potential users of networked information on invasive fish and plants and their information needs, and to recommend an incremental strategy for developing capacity in invasive species networking. This study outlines a plan for an IABIN pilot project on invasive species. To keep the effort manageable, vascular plants and freshwater fish were chosen as focal taxa for the initial pilot proposal.
The information system resulting from this pilot project is envisioned as a distributed network of locally-developed and maintained databases which share common elements with a controlled vocabulary, facilitating information retrieval and access. Many local, independently-derived electronic databases currently exist, so a challenge faced by IABIN is to make these data sources more easily accessible and to allow an increased level of data access and synthesis. Where such data repositories do not currently exits, IABIN will support the establishment of the needed infrastructure. In addition, country-level nodes to serve as repositories of electronic information will need to be established to harmonize existing in-country data sources, to facilitate data standardization and to help to meet the objective of a distributed yet integrated network. The need for such a network grows daily, and with increasing commercial activities within the Americas, an IABIN network will serve an essential purpose and for the first time provide access to data which will help to meet critical economic and environmental needs.
Programmatic design issues, difficult to resolve in their full generality, will be addressed through this pilot effort. These issues include:
This report was prepared by Dr. James F. Quinn, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis. Funding for this study was provided by the United States Agency for International Development, Project #598-0780, "Environmental Support Project," under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior. Project management was provided by the International Biological Informatics Program of the U.S. Geological Survey.
In December 1996, leaders of the governments of the Americas met at the Santa Cruz (Bolivia) Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development. Government leaders recognized the importance of reliable and accurate information on biodiversity in decision-making and the need for cooperation among the countries of the Western Hemisphere to link information sources together. Summit leaders agreed to:
Seek to establish an Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network, primarily through the Internet, that will promote compatible means of collection, communication and exchange of information relevant to decision-making and education on biodiversity conservation, and that builds upon such initiatives such as the Clearing-House Mechanism provided for in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Man and the Biosphere Network (MABNet), and the Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS), an initiative of nine IUCN programs and partners.The above declaration, Initiative 31, prompted a series of informal meetings among interested parties, which were followed by two Experts' Meetings, sponsored by the Organization of American States, regarding the establishment of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN). At an Experts' Meeting in January 1998, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) announced an inter-agency agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development to help support planning of the IABIN concept by addressing key issues deemed important and of mutual interest to planning experts. This report is a product of the inter-agency agreement, and a follow-up agreement between the USGS and the University of California, Davis.
U.S. participants in IABIN met in October, 1998, in Alexandria, Virginia, to review available information and develop recommendations on goals, institutional frameworks, legal constraints, and information sharing for IABIN, and to develop priorities for pilot projects. As in earlier meetings, invasive species were identified as priority for international information networking. Invasive species are of immediate concern to a number of present and potential IABIN cooperators; they have huge ecological and economic impacts, have generated a substantial body of scientific knowledge which could be assembled into a useful information framework, and may be fairly tractable from the perspective of data standards and shared vocabularies. To keep an initial pilot project on invasive species manageable, vascular plants and freshwater fish were chosen as focal taxa for the initial pilot proposal.
USGS, The Nature Conservancy, and the University of California, with
assistance from CONABIO and a number of independent experts, hosted a workshop
of invasive species and database specialists at the National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California at Santa
Barbara, in October 1998, to develop more detailed recommendations for
developing the invasive species pilot project. This report reflects those
deliberations.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Intentional introduction and unintentional transport of biological organisms from their native ranges to new areas are increasing as a consequence of increasing human travel and trade. Intentionally introduced alien species provide food, fibre, pharmaceuticals, industrial materials, horticultural materials, recreational resources, and amenities. Most alien species cause no demonstrable harm. However, a growing number of plants, animals, and pathogens have established free living populations, of which some have become invasive in natural areas, waterways, crop lands, and rangelands. These invasive alien species (IAS) are causing significant and increasing impacts to native species, ecosystems, and the national economies, and pose increasing risks to human health. Direct costs imposed by invasive species have recently been estimated at $120 billion/year in the United States alone.
Documenting current invasions and preventing new invasions are vital to the protection of biological diversity in all countries. Data on non-native invasive species present in the Americas are incomplete, and data that are available are scattered in a variety of published and unpublished accounts and databases. This makes it difficult or impossible for land managers to identify, much less properly manage, invasive species on their lands. In addition, the lack of data makes it more difficult to prevent invasions by new species into areas to which they have not yet been introduced, because access to information on their previous invasive ability is mostly unavailable. Studies have shown that the best predictor of whether a new species will become invasive is whether it has invaded elsewhere.
As with many kinds of environmental information, data on occurrences and impacts of invasive species are gathered to address issues of local concern, require local expertise to collect and manage, and represent efforts of a heterogeneous group of organizations and individuals. As a result, it is both impractical and undesirable to try to centralize data holdings and access. Only a network of invasive species databases from many nations will contain the information needed to make predictions of which species may become invasives and hence contribute to attempts to prohibit entry of species with high potential to invade. The databases will also contain information on how to control each species listed, which may be crucial to efforts to eradicate or contain these species quickly when they are first discovered in a new area. Eradication and containment are most possible and cost-effective for species that have just been detected and whose populations are still small.
Potential users of a network of databases include the following:
Invasives provide an attractive first phase for developing the IABIN
infrastructure because taxonomic treatments of most important pests are
relatively settled and the economic implications are already well established.
Therefore, common vocabularies and cross-references for data sharing exist
or can be developed relatively easily. However, the approach is applicable
to other taxa as nomenclatural standards and authorities (for example,
the Integrated Taxonomic Information System and Flora of the Americas)
become established. The technological framework proposed for invasives
is suitable for use in other pilots projects recommended in the Alexandria
meeting, including pollinators and amphibians, and should be closely coordinated
with those projects as they develop. Existing data to begin populating
the new data compendia are available from MABNet Americas (MABFauna, MABFlora)
and other protected area information initiatives affiliated with IABIN,
including those being developed by IUCN and its collaborators (e.g., the
Biodiversity Conservation Information System). Information on species impacting
agriculture has been developed by a variety of programs regulating commerce
in plants and some animal groups. A review by the Plant Board of U.S. agricultural
safeguarding programs is currently in draft form. While data on weedy species
from herbaria and museums is probably more limited, systematics collections
are ultimately a crucial source of information on species' histories and
distributions.
FRAMEWORK
In the long run, if biodiversity information systems are to help conservation efforts set priorities and identify potential environmental degradation before the crisis stage, they need to cover the full range of taxa and habitats threatened by human activities. Ambitious national and transnational programs to do so are well underway in a number of countries, including the Base de Dados Tropical (http://www.bdt.org.br/bdt/) in Brazil, INBio (http://www.inbio.ac.cr/) in Costa Rica, CONABIO (http://www.inbio.ac.cr/) in Mexico, and several emerging international biodiversity networks, including BIN21 (http://www.bdt.org.br/bin21/bin21.html) and the Biodiversity Conservation Information System (http://biodiversity.org). Many of these programs build on the approach of the Clearing-House Mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity and subsequent activities.
At the same time, there are needs for more targeted programs to develop information exchange on particular biodiversity issues with high impact and short time horizon. Not only can these help guide policy on priority issues, but they can provide useful pilots to engage specialists beyond the information systems and systematics communities in applied research and management at the same time that background work on unified taxonomies and data systems are under development for the more general class of problems. Important criteria for the choice of pilot efforts, as identified by IABIN experts, include that the pilot projects:
Building a Network: Empowering Communication Among Distributed Cooperators
The proposed strategy for developing an international network on invasive species rests on several observations about the nature of biodiversity information:
Vocabulary Considerations
Invasives information readily shared over an electronic network includes the identities, locations, dates, and observers for individual species occurrences, bibliographies, photographs, and maps. However, even these must be described with a consistent vocabulary to useful to users. An agreed vocabulary ("controlled vocabulary" or "thesaurus") of scientific names (Latin binomials) for the (maybe 1000) non-indigenous species extensively tracked by scientists in the Americas is manageable, although it would undoubtedly not correspond to every cooperator's preferred usage. Cross-walks to other standardized names would be needed. Utility to most users also requires reference to common names, which are rarely standardized, and may need to be made available in at least 4 languages. A thesaurus of common names for important invasives could be developed. Other potentially useful vocabulary elements (vegetation types, soils, land use, successional stage) could in principle be supplied by individual "nodes," but in practice these elements are too variable in their use to make cross-organizational or transnational comparisons very useful. Geographic descriptions can be standardized on a crude scale (country, province, city, major river), but not for many detailed usages (owner, watershed, headwater stream.)
Controlled vocabularies or thesauri are difficult to impose top-down.
Data developers rarely work directly for standards organizations, and they
may have little incentive to follow a directive they find burdensome or
ill-suited to their interests. In practice, thesauri are only successful
when they are adopted voluntarily by a community of users for the purpose
of improving communication within the community. Thesauri also need to
be tended by a workgroup, clearinghouse, or other organization that can
respond to ambiguities, new additions or changes in usage, and that (for
data management purposes) "keeps the codes." It is likely that the community
of experts on non-indigenous fish is sufficiently small and interactive
that thesauri for exotic fish occurrences could be developed and maintained
(perhaps through a professional society.) It is possible that there are
multiple communities (agricultural pest experts, restoration ecologists,
rangeland managers, the nursery industry), each with its own language,
for invasive plants. The first challenge to IABIN is to enhance the ability
of user communities to coalesce and establish shared vocabularies for tracking
invasive species information. [Note: The existing clearinghouse mechanisms
and national programs have made admirable progress on taxonomic vocabularies.
Vocabularies for impacts, threats, management methods, assessments of success,
public communication, etc., will undoubtedly have to be developed in the
context of databases focused on particular policy issues, such as invasives.]
Content Elements of a Distributed Information System for Invasive Species
The October, 1998, Santa Barbara workshop was designed in part to assemble a small group of experts on invasive vascular plants and freshwater fish in the Americas and to assess the extent and usefulness for scientific analysis of existing information on a hemispheric basis, to identify some potential users of networked information on invasive fish and plants and their information needs, and to recommend an incremental strategy for developing capacity in invasive species networking. Participants represented seven countries and a variety of government agencies, museums, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and universities (see Appendix 1). The group identified at least eight classes of data compendia or databases that would be broadly useful for research, management and educational activities with invasives and assessed some models and time horizons for developing them. Proposed content elements include:
1. Development of Priority Invasive Species Lists for Fish and Vascular Plants (short term priority)
To keep the task manageable, attention should initially be restricted to species with demonstrated negative ecological or economic impact and tracked by an IABIN country or cooperator organization. By their nature, existing lists of priority species are heterogeneous in their content and intent, as some reflect primarily agricultural considerations (noxious weed lists), whereas others may be based more on ecological impact or even disease and vector considerations. Consequently, a logically consistent hemispheric list (or even a single country list) is infeasible. Instead, it seems more appropriate to track the species of concern to each participating organization, and allow users to interpret which lists are useful for their particular applications. A draft database specification is given in Appendix 2.
It would be useful to tag species with the type and degree of risk. However, the workgroup was unaware of any widely-used standard classification of this kind, and suggest that an IABIN workgroup might develop a standard vocabulary for this purpose. Elements might include:
2. Registry of Experts (short term priority)
This could be compiled several mechanisms, including individuals:
3. Directory(ies) of Invasives-related Internet Resources (short term priority)
A number of Internet Web sites have developed useful models. A prototype
for IABIN is on line at http://www.nfrcg.gov/nas/
4. Registry of Databases and Other Information Sources (short term priority)
A formal online catalog of existing databases can be used to document the availability of information and to provide a tool for searching for and retrieving databases. Following the lead of a number of participating organizations, the catalog should probably use the GILS metadata format for the catalog (see http://www.gils.net) although other similar formulations (e.g., the "Dublin Core") could be used. [GILS is a profile of Z39.50, a specification for data description that also encompasses the Library of Congress's MARC bibliographic database and the U.S. government's Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata standard. As a result, server software exists to permit straightforward distributed access to GILS and other Z39.50 data, maintained on multiple servers, and therefore simplifies data discovery in an internationally distributed user community.] Placing data catalog records in the public domain does not require that the underlying data be made public; the registry could include proprietary and commercial information sources, with pricing and access procedures documented.
GILS records contain information describing content, contacts, organization,
access instructions, geographic and taxonomic coverage, etc. to permit
users to locate useful data, but do not generally carry the full documentation,
or metadata, needed (data dictionaries, collection methodology, data processing
techniques) needed to actually work with the data. Full metadata should
probably be on line for all core datasets assembled by IABIN. A relevant,
detailed Z39.50-compliant metadata standard for biological data has recently
been proposed by the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII;
see http://www.nbii.gov). A review by the American Institute of
Biological Sciences suggests expanding the NBII strategy into a multi-tier
metadata registry, with small datasets compiled with simple GILS records,
perhaps entered on-line by their authors, whereas more complex or core
data sets would carry more detailed metadata, and might be peer-reviewed
as part of a full electronic publication process. This model is also potentially
attractive for IABIN.
5. Registry of Field Projects to Manage or Eradicate Invasive Species (medium term priority)
Similar in concept to the registry of data sets, this registry would
help users identify existing or completed on-the-ground activities relevant
to their decision making. Content elements include species under management,
methods, participants, resources being protected, organizations and contacts,
and pointers to data, documents, and other support materials. A potential
model for this effort is the California Noxious Weed Project Inventory
(http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/weeds/), which is based on a GILS
core structure, and may be accessed using similar Internet and search tools.
Perhaps the most useful element of such an effort would be some kind of
standardized assessment of the success of the methods employed. However,
methods or terminology for describing success will require some development
and consensus-building.
6. Identification of Information Gaps and Information Needs (short-medium term priority)
A number of IABIN participants, particularly from land management organizations,
have expressed a need to catalog information gaps, particularly for specific
information needed to design or support funded or mandated programs. Models
for such systems are under development in several U.S. federal agencies
(and undoubtedly elsewhere), but the workgroup was unaware of any on-line
biodiversity-related "gaps" databases currently operational and widely
used.
7. Database of Needs and Opportunities for Capacity Building
(There may already be a good model for content from IUCN or Conservation
International.)
8. Alert System (medium-long term priority)
Timely responses to non-indigenous species, particularly aggressive
invaders, may be required to contain new outbreaks. A system for actively
notifying responsible governmental organizations and other stakeholders
is essential. Notifications of the press and educational organizations
to raise awareness and stimulate better detection can also be useful. Existing
alert systems for reports of range expansions and local outbreaks, such
as the USGS system for aquatic nuisance species (http://www.nfrcg.gov/nas/),
could provide useful models. A "smart e-mail server" capable of filtering
alerts by location and taxonomy is probably necessary to prevent recipients
from being overwhelmed with irrelevant information and blocking out the
service.
9. Bibliography (ongoing need)
This is a large task, probably underway in multiple places. IABIN might
begin by cataloging existing bibliographies.
10. Distributed Species Distribution Mapping Systems (long term priority)
Ultimately, this is the core element for biodiversity clearinghouses. In general, the definitive copy of most distributional data is, and should be, held by the collecting organization or scientist. The role of the network is to locate and extract those elements of distributional datasets that can usefully be combined with data from other sources. Initially, this might be a very limited set (e.g., species, location, collector, date), and used to construct range maps and conduct statistical analyses.
An attractive model for this approach is the "Species Analyst" program developed at the University of Kansas with funding from the North American Biodiversity Information Network. This particular project uses a public domain Internet (Z39.50 server) technology to access the collecting locations and dates for museum specimens of North American birds directly from the internal databases of a couple of dozen museums. The attraction of this approach is that it does not specify a database format for the host institution; it merely requires a translation table between the host's format for the shared data fields and that used by the server. As a result, hosts can use formats tailored to their needs and attach related data inconsistent with that collected in their partners, and only the shared elements ("who-where-what-when") automatically enter the distributed system. Given the variety of cooperators, consistency with local information practices is even more important for IABIN. Databases used by workgroup members that could be accessed in this fashion include INVADERS (http://invader.dbs.umt.edu), the USGS Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species Program (http://nas.er.usgs.gov), a number of the Nature Conservancy Biodiversity Conservation Databases (http://www.tnc.org), and the MABFlora and MABFauna databases for species in Biosphere Reserves (http://ice.ucdavis.edu/MAB). More generally, species data from protected areas, such as those being compiled by IUCN (BCIS) and the World Conservation Monitoring Network are especially amenable to this treatment.
Potential uses of distributed species occurrence data include modeling
as well as visualizing locations and history. Both Species Analyst and
INVADERS can be used to assess the suitability of habitats for a particular
species (essentially by regression analysis using mapped properties, such
as biotic province, elevation, and rainfall). Apparently suitable habitat
without records may represent a lack of surveys, or it may mean that those
sites are vulnerable to future infestation. Models of this kind are under
development by number of programs (for example, GARP and BIOCLIM in Australia),
and represent a long term research priority for IABIN.
11. Development of Educational Materials (long term priority)
Examples include fact sheets and case studies for effects of deliberately
introduced species, and on-line identification materials for pests. (A
well-publicized recent example was the identification of the Asian longhorn
beetle by an amateur in Chicago, using a photograph on the Internet. Early
recognition may have prevented the outbreak from escaping far from the
point of discovery.) Particular opportunities exist to work with industry
to develop public education materials for stocked fish and horticultural
species, and to educate users on potential unintended consequences of biocontrol
agents. For the professional community, summaries of best practices for
managing invasives would be particularly useful.
Support Needs for Pilot Products
The priority invasive species lists, the registry of field projects, and probably the experts database will need to use a nomination and review process, probably conducted by one or more volunteer review boards. The working group could prototype these products, and might promote acceptance by presenting them at workshops at professional meetings (for example, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists.)
The registry of projects and the alert system require ongoing funding and dedicated staff (probably one staff scientist and one assistant each would be needed initially at each data center supporting these databases, but might increase substantially if the system became widely used. Probably several collaborating regional data centers should ultimately host these databases, if only for language and communications reasons.)
The support for distributed mapping depends upon the technology used
and the degree of detail supported, but would probably require several
hundred thousand dollars to develop, and would entail substantial training
and support costs.
Principles for Registry Databases
Data developers of invasive species or other data may charge users for access to data, or the data may not even be currently available. However, the registry information must all be freely available and searchable using free software. Similarly, attributes (e.g., vegetation types) must be based on freely available data. For example, if the registry uses a particular NGO's vegetation types to describe habitat preferences of a species, descriptions and maybe maps of those vegetation types must be in the public domain. Copyrights of registries, if they are claimed, should still permit all users to use and duplicate registry data. It may or may not be desirable to restrict reselling of registry data.
We recommend that the registries be GILS compliant. However, the vocabularies
used for the various GILS fields should probably be derived from the invasive
species science and management community.
PROTOTYPE FOR AN IABIN PILOT NETWORK FOR INVASIVE SPECIES
A first step toward the development of a hemisphere-wide information
system on invasive plants and fishes is a networking pilot project with
specific objectives and components. The components of the pilot project
consist of three levels of involvement in each participating country: 1)
Country Representatives, who are the individuals proposed by the participating
countries to serve as representatives for those countries for the IABIN
invasive species information system project, 2) Country Nodes, which are
the data repositories for project-related data on invasive species and
serves as the site where data are aggregated for an entire country, and
3) IABIN partners, who are the individuals and institutions which participate
in and provide the data for the invasive species database. Initially, the
pilot will need to establish an interim IABIN Internet Web site, a draft
set of standards describing information technology requirements, the minimum
amount and kind of data to be posted to the interim IABIN invasive species
Web site, and minimum database standards, as outlined below.
IABIN Pilot Projects
Criteria for selecting IABIN Country Representative:
Funding and Time Lines
For some of the pilot databases, the current participants could be collecting
and serving information, using existing Internet facilities, within weeks.
Others (particularly the distributed species occurrence system) undoubtedly
will require both some redesign in consultation with IABIN participants,
and some months of development and training. All would benefit from comment
and participation from a wider cross-section of the invasive species expert
community and other stakeholders. Costs at this point are speculative,
as they depend upon the number of participants and the infrastructural
and training needs of each. (For this draft, a rough Excel worksheet is
attached for scoping purposes.)
SUMMARY
An effective Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network focused
on invasive species of vascular plants and fishes is envisioned as a distributed
network of locally-developed and maintained databases which share common
elements with a controlled vocabulary, facilitating information retrieval
and access. Many local, independently-derived electronic databases currently
exist, so a challenge faced by IABIN is to make these data sources more
easily accessible and to allow an increased level of data access and synthesis.
Where such data repositories do not currently exits, IABIN will support
the establishment of the needed infrastructure. In addition, country-level
nodes to serve as repositories of electronic information will need to be
established to harmonize existing in-country data sources, to facilitate
data standardization and to help to meet the objective of a distributed
yet integrated network. The need for such a network grows daily, and with
increasing commercial activities within the Americas, an IABIN network
will serve an essential purpose and for the first time provide access to
data which will help to meet critical economic and environmental needs.
Questions to be Addressed by the Pilot
One purpose of pilot studies is to address programmatic design issues difficult to resolve in their full generality. Some important questions identified by the experts conference in Alexandria, Virginia, in October 1998 include:
APPENDIX 1
SANTA BARBARA IABIN INVASIVE SPECIES WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX 2
SUGGESTED STRUCTURE OF DATABASES TO BE PROVIDED (SHORT-TERM)
A format for compiling lists of invasive species (family, genus, species,
infrataxon) of plants, fishes, keyed to country, which are covered in the
IABIN Invasive Species database
Database
compiler
date compiled (yyyymmdd)
source of data
date to be reviewed (yyyymmdd)Record for a species
family
genus
species
authority reference
reason nominated
date added or modified (yymmdd)
links to related on-line resources as a space-delimited text field
place of origin (aka native range)
place of invasion (to country only for now)
APPENDIX 3
SOME EXISTING SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON INVASIVE SPECIES
This list is representative of the kinds of data sources on invasive
species currently available. Hundreds of additional information resources
exist and these are available from many disparate sources.
Agency Reports
Electronic Resources
U.S. Department of Agriculture Resources
APHIS Library Resources and other Resources currently used by Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) personnel of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Primarily Operational Databases
Journal Articles