Data fitness for use in research on
alien and invasive species
Final task group report
November 2016

Melodie McGeoch
Quentin Groom
Shyama Pagad
Varos G. Petrosyan
Gregory M. Ruiz
John Wilson

Suggested citation
McGeoch MA, Groom QJ, Pagad S, Petrosyan V, Ruiz G & Wilson J (2016) Data fitness foruse in research on alien and invasive species. Copenhagen: GBIF Secretariat. Available
online at: http://www.gbif.org/resource/82958.

Persistent URI
http://www.gbif.org/resource/82958
The report Appendices A & B are available at:
http://www.gbif.org/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/AIS-appendices-FINAL.pdf
This report is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Supported License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.

Usage of the terms ‘alien’ and ‘invasive’ in this report
The phrase ‘alien and invasive species’ (abbreviated as A&IS) is used throughout thisdocument rather than the phrase ‘invasive alien species’ (IAS) as used by the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) (and whose definitions we adopt here). The reason for this is that
not all alien species have negative environmental or socio-economic impacts and according
to the CBD definition are therefore not invasive. This distinction is relevant to the purpose ofthis task group.

Cover Image
Oxalis micrantha is a native to Argentina, Chile and Peru and is also invasive in California.
During a side event of the Task Group meeting in Melbourne, this species was discovered inAustralia for the first time. The Parks Department are now considering how to eradicate it,
before it spreads further. Oxalis is one of the weediest plant genera and it goes to show how
important vigilance, communication and a rapid response are, if we are to control the spreadof invasive species. Photo: Quentin Groom, 2016

Acknowledgements
We thank iDiv, Helen Matthey, Jörg Freyhof, Henrique Pereira and Carsten Meyer for
discussion, assistance and hosting the first Task Group meeting. Monash University
provided financial support for travel and hosted the second meeting in Melbourne.
We also thank all survey respondents for their valuable contributions to informing this report.
We thank members of the TDWG/GBIF Data Quality Interest Group (Lee Belbin, Arthur
Chapman and Miles Nicholls) for valuable input on data quality.
Page 2 | 29

Task Group / Authors (left to right)

John Wilson SANBI (South African National Biodiversity Institute) and Centre for Invasion
Biology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Gregory Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre, U.S.A.
Quentin J. Groom Botanic Garden Meise, Belgium
Melodie A. McGeoch (chair) Monash University, Australia
Shyama Pagad IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, Australia
Dmitry Schigel GBIF Secretariat, Denmark
Varos Petrosyan A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of
Science; deputy editor, Russian Journal of Biological Invasions

Page 3 | 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7
General Approach ..................................................................................................... 7
Survey and publications using GBIF-mediated data on A&IS .............................. 9
Method ................................................................................................................................. 9
Quantitative survey results .................................................................................................. 9
Qualitative survey results .................................................................................................. 10

Topic areas and recommendations....................................................................... 11
1. Strategic approaches and interventions for improving data fitness for use for A&IS ..... 12
2. Improving existing data: quality, quantity and standards ............................................... 14
3. Expanding information content ...................................................................................... 15
4. Functionality: expansion and refinement ....................................................................... 16
5. Communication and engagement .................................................................................. 18

Top priorities and key recommendations for improving the data fitness for use
for alien and invasive species ......................................................................... 18
Tables....................................................................................................................... 20
Table 1. Strategic approaches and interventions .............................................................. 20
Table 2. Improving existing data ........................................................................................ 21
Table 3. Expanding information content ............................................................................ 23
Table 4. Expanding and refining functionality .................................................................... 25
Table 5. Communicating with and engaging the A&IS community .................................... 27

References............................................................................................................... 28
Appendices
http://www.gbif.org/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/AIS-appendices-FINAL.pdf

Page 4 | 29

Executive Summary
The discovery, access and appropriate use of primary biodiversity data are critical for alien
and invasive species (A&IS) research at continental, regional, country and subnational
scales. Sustainable, reliable, timely, and accessible data on A&IS is essential to thelong-term management of this key threat to biodiversity, including the ability of countries
to meet the Honolulu Challenge (https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/invasivespecies/honolulu-challenge-invasive-alien-species) and to achieve Aichi Target 9 of theStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-9).
GBIF provides a range of essential information services for A&IS researchers, including
but not limited to taxonomic and occurrence information. The Task Group on Data Fitness
for Use for A&IS aimed to capture the best available experiences, document limitations inexisting GBIF services and suggest improvements in the functionality of GBIF.org to support
domain-specific needs for research on A&IS. While the Task Group focused on the needs ofresearch, we also considered the best means of organizing data useful for (a) policy needs,
such as indicators of progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Target 9 and the recording ofEssential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) and (b) advancing and evaluating diverse
management applications, such as alerts, detection strategies, and risk assessments.
After broad consultation with the research and A&IS community, a suite of recommendations
were identified under five broad topic areas: 1) Strategic approaches, 2) Improving existing
data, 3) Expanding information content, 4) Functionality, and 5) Communication andengagement. Several recommendations are relevant for other data users, but theavailability, quality and timeliness of these data are especially critical for A&IS
because of the real-world consequences resulting from the negative impacts of biologicalinvasions.
Five priority recommendations were distilled that could form the basis of a strategy for the
GBIF network to improve data fitness for use for A&IS research. In summary GBIF could:
1. Increase its capacity as an essential hub for open access A&IS information
2. Increase communication with national nodes to improve data coverage
3. Improve functionality and visibility of A&IS information
4. Support the enhancement, development and adoption of relevant data standards
5. Focus on data and information improvements essential to A&IS research, including
extent and currency of occurrence data, geographic origin, native and non-native
ranges at species and record levels, information on mechanisms of introduction, anddata quality enhancements
Alien species occurrence includes taxonomically verified species presence records orabsence information at a locality with a geographic coordinate, or in a prescribed area, suchas a management or geopolitical unit or site (Latombe et al. 2016). Alien species occurrence
information is the single most important variable necessary to support research,monitoring and management of A&IS. It is also one that requires in-situ collection fromcountries. Such data are the core of GBIF’s mandate, and GBIF is best positioned to house
open access information of this nature, for both countries with and without the capacity to do

Page 5 | 29

so themselves. We therefore cannot emphasize more strongly how important GBIF is to thisendeavour.
In conclusion, GBIF plays a pivotal role in the provision and hosting of data on A&IS. As astable and experienced host of global open-access species information, it is a unique andwidely relied upon source of information on the taxonomy and occurrence of A&IS. Together
with relevant partners and the recommendations made in this report, GBIF will expand its
role as a critical resource that is instrumental to the ongoing delivery of the informationneeded to minimize the introduction, spread and negative impacts of A&IS.

Introduction
Biological invasion by alien species is a significant force of change, affecting the structureand function of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems across the globe. Invasions
result when species colonize (due to human-mediated transfers that breach historicaldispersal barriers, such as oceans and continents) and establish self-sustaining populations
beyond their historical biogeographic ranges. A subset of these alien species is known tohave severe impacts, including biodiversity loss (local-to-global extinctions), population
declines, habitat alteration, change in ecological processes, and disruption of ecosystemservices.
Invasion science is a multidisciplinary field that seeks to understand the biology, ecology,
distribution, impacts, and management of biological invasions by alien species. The field
includes both fundamental and applied research. The fundamental science tests classicalquestions about species assembly, population and community ecology, evolutionary biology,interaction strength, and ecosystem function. The applied science evaluates strategies tolimit and manage (control) invasion impacts. These data is used to both inform and evaluate
diverse management and policy frameworks on national, regional, and international scales.
At its core, invasion science concerns the distribution of species in space and time. There ishigh demand for occurrence data by a diverse community of end-users engaged in invasion
science as well as biosecurity activities to detect and prevent invasions. Importantly, there isalso a high premium on increased global coverage and rapid reporting of new occurrence
records for A&IS, because (a) invasive species are expanding rapidly in recent time (driven
by the increasing magnitude, rate, and global scale of trade), (b) effective conservation andmanagement actions depend on near real-time data for rapid assessment and response,and (c) A&IS research and management in one country often depends on insights and datafrom other countries where the taxon concerned is native or alien.
Currently, data coverage for occurrence records of alien species is lean and decentralized,
often not open access, and suffers from significant time lags, hampering research andmanagement and policy responses in several respects. First, empirical measures and robust
predictions (e.g., environmental niche models) for potential ranges, including responses toclimate change, rely on extensive occurrence data (Feeley & Silman 2011, Latombe et al.
2016). Second, assessing patterns of spread and potential risk of invasions to new regions
requires both knowledge about their current distribution, as well as the mechanisms ofPage 6 | 29

introduction (pathways and vectors1) (e.g. Ruiz et al. 2011, UNEP 2014). These data inform
basic science and also biosecurity actions, including surveillance to detect and prevent new
incursions. Third, occurrence records also serve to assess performance of management andpolicy to reduce invasion impacts (Carlton & Ruiz 2005).
Such assessments are increasingly required under individual (state and national)
jurisdictions and international agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) national reporting on progress made towards achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 9(CBD 2016). The recent IUCN Honolulu Challenge(https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/invasive-species/honolulu-challenge-invasivealien-species)) calls for bold action on invasive alien species. One of the essential needs formeeting this challenge is recognised as “enabling enhanced knowledge on invasive andalien species...through investment in data collection, standardization and open
access”. GBIF is well positioned to contribute significantly to meeting this Challenge.
GBIF convened a task group to evaluate fitness for use of GBIF-mediated data resources toaddress research on A&IS and to contribute to meeting existing needs for data in this topic
area (http://www.gbif.org/newsroom/news/invasive-alien-species-task-group-launched). The
overall goal of this report is to outline the current and potential roles of GBIF in the area of
A&IS resulting from this evaluation.

Objectives
This report addresses three specific objectives, as outlined in the terms of reference for thetask group (http://www.gbif.org/resource/82783), including:
1. Based on domain-specific data use experience, to make recommendations on
improving data availability and data use, data mobilization, data and metadatapublishing, and data processing.
2. To document best practices from ongoing initiatives using A&IS-related data, and tocollect information on repeatable tools (such as data filters) and data management
solutions.
3. Based on information from GBIF Secretariat about current developments relating toquality and fitness for use, to make recommendations for GBIF.org improvements onenhancing existing functions and current activities.

General Approach
The recommendations outlined and discussed below are the result of the work of this Task
Group on Data Fitness for Use for Alien and Invasive Species. They were derived fromdiscussion amongst members of the Task Group as well as suggestions and comments
obtained from respondents to a survey designed for this purpose (see outcome in following
section).

1

The terms pathway and vector are used interchangeably in this report, while we promote working
towards the widespread adoption of the categorization scheme promoted in UNEP (2014).

Page 7 | 29

In addition, the task group identified a number of relevant current activities, initiatives andstakeholders. These include•

Aichi Target 9 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020•

The Global Register for Introduced and Invasive Species (http://www.griis.org), led by
IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)•

The multi-partner Essential Variables for Invasion Monitoring and Reporting initiative(www.invasionevs.com)•

The proposed Darwin Core standard extension including terms and vocabularies of
the Biodiversity Information Standards organization (www.tdwg.org) specifically for
A&IS data•

The GEO BON Species Populations Working Group and Essential Biodiversity
Variable-related activities, especially the Species Distribution EBV(http://geobon.org/essential-biodiversity-variables/what-are-ebvs/)•

The impact and pathway classification schemes being developed and promoted by
ISSG and research partners (UNEP 2014), especially the Global Invasive Alien
Species Information Partnership (GIASIP) (http://giasipartnership.myspecies.info/en)

Finally, the Task Group met with the Biodiversity Data Quality Interest Group of GBIF
and TDWG (http://www.tdwg.org/activities/biodiversity-data-quality/interest-group-charter/).
The data-quality topics discussed with the interest group, and which are outlined in further
detail elsewhere in this report, included:•

Archiving research data and the challenge of locating and absorbing data andmetadata•

The inadequacy of Darwin Core terms to capture information mandatory forevaluation of invasions, such as dates of introduction and terms associated withchecklists•

Checklists and the need for quality assurance, including for taxonomic identifications
and uncertainty attributes (see Chapman (2005) Principles and Methods of Data
Cleaning: Primary Species and Species-Occurrence Data, available at
http://www.gbif.org/resource/80528, for relevant approaches)•

The recording of attributes at taxon level and the value of some derived information
presented as shape files•

The data-quality solutions used by the Atlas of Living Australia(http://www.ala.org.au) to deal with A&IS data quality assertion needs, including theuse of standard annotations (see http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076093)•

eDNA and the large quantity of A&IS relevant data largely without taxonomic names

The contributions from the multiple sources outlined above were all taken into consideration
in formulating the recommendations presented in this report.

Page 8 | 29

Survey and publications using GBIF-mediated data on A&IS
MethodA survey was designed and initially circulated to a group of targeted researchers (n = ~ 60)
that represent the relevant community and encompass expertise across realms, taxa andgeographic regions (see Appendix A). This survey to targeted researchers ran for the monthof August 2016, after which it was opened and circulated to interested members of thebroader community for response (via GBIF Nodes and other communication channels, the
Aliens-L list-server managed by ISSG, at the Alien Challenge COST Action at the Neobiota
conference).
The survey provided the primary avenue of intended liaison with other experts to define thedata use priorities essential for the A&IS research community. It constitutes widespread
consultation and determines key questions that need to be addressed for the A&IS
community on data availability and data use, including improvements in discovery andaccess, data mobilization, data and metadata publishing, and data processing at
institutional, national, regional, and global levels (Appendix A). The feedback received via
this route is integrated into the recommendations for improvements to GBIF.org functionality
for A&IS.

Quantitative survey results
We received a total of 182 responses (137 were fully completed) from a wide range of A&IS
researchers (Appendix A). The majority of respondents (87%) work for non-commercialorganizations, but they were well distributed across terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms
interested in a wide range of organisms and research topics. A minority (17%) reported thatthey regularly used GBIF, and 27% reported that they had published papers with GBIFmediated data.
The A&IS community has quite broad requirements for use of GBIF-mediated data; all thesuggested improvements in the questionnaire are required to some extent. However, themost important requirements were the provision of information on native ranges. There
are also some more subtle differences between GBIF users, depending on their background.
A cluster analysis of the questionnaire results indicated the presence of two types of user
(Appendix A).
One group of respondents uses the GBIF API (Application Programming Interface:
http://www.gbif.org/developer/summary) for species distribution modelling. They are lessinterested in invasion impacts and management, but they are more likely to have publishedscientific papers from GBIF-mediated data. Over 350 publications on A&IS related studies
have used data from the network accessed through GBIF, covering diverse taxa and topics
in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine realms. It is thus evident that GBIF provides a resource
used widely across many disciplines in the A&IS research community. A word cloud createdby using the titles and keywords of these selected publications visualizes the relatively
prominent terms likely to indicate user groups. This exercise revealed that species
distribution modelling was the dominant use of GBIF-accessed data in research publications(Figure 1).

Page 9 | 29

Figure 1: Wordle of the title and abstracts of over 350 publications (published 2007-2016) on alien and invasive species using GBIFmediated data. Note that in the survey we identified two main user groups; this word cloud represents the first user group (who tend touse the GBIF API for species distribution modelling), rather than the second user group (who tended to focus on the ecology, impacts
and management of biological invasion).

The second group are researchers who use the data for a wide range of reasons including
investigating the ecology, impacts and management of invasions. They generally access
GBIF by browsing the website. While the more technical users are visible due to their
publications, the users in this second group are in fact more numerous, have importantroles in the response to A&IS and look to GBIF to provide essential biodiversity data in ways
not easily tracked by citations.
An important take-home message is that GBIF needs to accommodate these different sorts
of users to increase its user base in A&IS research.

Qualitative survey results
The full set of free-form comments from the survey respondents are provided in Appendix A
and underscore the demand for a range of information highly relevant to A&IS that iscurrently not accommodated by GBIF.
In summary, the main points made by the survey respondents included:
1. The most common themes were the need for better data coverage and data
quality control. Content and process refinements identified included definitions,
A&IS data standards, scale and resolution of data and speed/frequency of record
uploads.
2. The most frequently identified information need, and most frequent comment overall,is information on species native ranges and, as follows, introduced range. This
comment is reinforced by the call for information that forms the foundation ofknowledge on native and non-native ranges, i.e. absence data, data of
introduction, eradication records and species range dynamics.
3. There were also calls for a number of types of information related to knowledge of
species impact, including abundance, invasion status and priority, legislative status

Page 10 | 29

by country and management options. Respondents requested a range of additional
life history information such as habitat use, physiology and other species traits.
4. Suggestions for expanded functionality included requests for additional and more
flexible data filters, and improvements in the ease and fitness for use of data
extraction by filter.
5. Expanded functionality on error descriptions and reporting, and the possibility of asurveillance or rapid response/reporting tool were also suggested (seecomments on range dynamics above).
6. The important role of GBIF to contribute to the formulation of data standards for
A&IS was highlighted.
7. The viewpoint that GBIF could do more to improve its visibility as a provider of
A&IS data was fairly common, and that it could actively advertise and engage with arange of relevant potential partners, related activities and data providers.

Topic areas and recommendations
The full suite of recommendations that emerged were integrated and grouped into five topic
areas, that if implemented will significantly improve data fitness for use for A&IS acrossmultiple relevant applications and outputs (Figure 2): 1) Strategic approaches, 2) Improving
existing data, 3) Expanding information content, 4) Functionality, and 5) Communication andengagement. The sections below identify a comprehensive range of topic-specific andprioritized recommendations in each of these five areas. Some of the background andrationale supporting these recommendations are provided in further detail in Appendix B.

Figure 2: Overview of data inputs, enhancements and new functions for GBIF (top of figure) to increase data fitness for use for abroad range of alien and invasive species research, policy and management applications and outputs (lower part of figure).

Page 11 | 29

Tables 1-5 provide specific recommendations for their respective topics. Each table also
includes details on:•

The agents best positioned to be responsible for implementation, which include the
GBIF Secretariat, GBIF nodes, data publishers, the GBIF Governing Board (GB), theTask Group (TG), among others•

The importance or priority of the recommendation (High, Moderate, Low) and thesuggested timeline for implementation of the recommendation (Short = one year,
Medium = 2-3 years, Long = 3-5 years, ongoing)•

The suggested approach or solution•

The difference that the recommendation will make to the data fitness for use for
A&IS research.

1. Strategic approaches and interventions for improving data fitness for use for
A&IS
To most effectively improve data fitness for use for A&IS, we suggest an Alien and Invasive
Species Data Strategy that translates this report’s priority recommendations into tactics,
actions and deliverables and creates feedback mechanisms for reviewing the success of
implementation via expert or advisory groups. An important context for this strategy is to
identify key geographic regions (continental, regional and national) with the largest data
gaps and where improving GBIF’s data coverage could generate the greatest gains for A&IS
(Table 1).
Linking data published through GBIF to international initiatives relevant to A&IS, like the
CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and Aichi Target 9, and aligning work
programs to assist in the delivery of policy priorities, particularly supporting countries withlimited capacity, will not only benefit research (by leading to better data) but will also
strengthen and broaden GBIF’s contribution to biodiversity conservation more generally (Box1). Consideration could be given to developing work packages or case studies that use
priority A&IS to demonstrate the contribution of GBIF to these initiatives.
An important role for GBIF is to develop the existing infrastructure using A&IS relevant
components of Darwin Core and the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT), including therecommended changes to Darwin Core (Appendix B.1). GBIF could be effective at
promoting Darwin Core new fields (terms), as well as the development of other standards for
A&IS information, including type of introduction, native and alien distributions, area of origin,invasiveness and impact (Appendix B.1). Importantly, the research community is wellequipped to provide the knowledge needed to underpin these developments and solutions,since the approach and structure for these areas has been a focus of extensive work in thefield over the past two decades.

Page 12 | 29

Box 1: Catalysing partnerships to support data fitness for use for alien and invasive species (A&IS)
research and benefits for countries

A number of strategic opportunities exist to establish clearer policy-level links between data published through
GBIF and international initiatives relevant to A&IS. The Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species(GRIIS) is a product of the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership (GIASIP) that provides
verified checklists of A&IS at the country/territory level. Filtering GBIF-mediated data through GRIIS could
prioritize the information that researchers and countries need to minimize the impacts of biological invasion.
Filtering these checklists by taxonomy and location—facilitated by prescribed queries and other web services—can produce several outputs to help countries develop and report not only to the CBD but also on otherMultilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs).
For example, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are policy instruments developed bycountries to provide information on plans and activities aimed at the implementation of the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 and achievement of listed Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Countries that are Parties to the
CBD are also encouraged to submit National Reports and provide information on their progress towards theimplementation of the Strategic and the Aichi Targets. Aichi Target 9 encourages countries to identify invasive
species and their pathways of introduction and spread (UNEP 2014), and prioritize them for management.
Authoritative baseline data on the presence of alien and invasive species at the country and site level and theirimpacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services is therefore fundamental to the implementation of the Strategic
Plan and Aichi Target 9.
GBIF could consider developing case studies or aligning work programmes that use priority A&IS, particularly
in support of countries with limited capacity, to demonstrate its potential to contribute to these initiatives.

Page 13 | 29

In addition, GBIF could take full advantage of the opportunity to utilize and incorporate datafrom the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS,
http://www.griis.org) (IUCN SSC ISSG as part of GIASIP), which provides a key filter andprioritisation mechanism for GBIF. As an evidence-based and nationally verified list of
species, we highly recommend its use for targeting and prioritizing the update, cleaning,
completion and creation of relevant filters for this group of species data in GBIF. Priority
data include taxonomy, synonyms, common names, absence data, as well as nativeand introduced geographic ranges (Table 1).

2. Improving existing data: quality, quantity and standards
Users of A&IS data, in particular researchers, regard data quality and information on data
quality as essential (Table 2). Without this, researchers lose confidence in data provision
platforms, seriously undermining the use and benefits of such facilities. Data quality is thejoint responsibility of data publishers, holders and users, and we strongly encourage GBIF tocontinue to play an active role in improving and communicating data quality.
While relevant across all areas of research, this is particularly critical for research on A&IS,
where errors may reduce the value and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the negative
impacts of invasive species on biodiversity. For example, accuracy and completeness oftaxonomic information is a core GBIF function and, given problems with synonyms andmisidentifications of A&IS (McGeoch et al. 2012), an important focus for improving data
quality and completeness. This applies not only to taxonomy but also to inaccurate location
data, which the A&IS research community considers to be a significant challenge. Ideally,users could improved data using automated filters based on habitat/biome and flagged assuspect by a) using known range to identify outliers (from known range) and b) allowing theuser community to flag records as potential outliers. Solutions like those implemented by the
Atlas of Living Australia promote data quality, because this approach distinguishes highquality data from less reliable data over time, even if publishers do not correct these records.
Such communications appear particularly valuable and appropriate for A&IS.
It is also preferable that data on A&IS are made available as soon as possible throughGBIF.org. The evidence available from GBIF shows a gap of 1-2 years between thecollection and publication dates of observations. Such delays severely limit analyses ofinvasion dynamics and risk assessments, given the rapid pattern of spread for many alientaxa. GBIF’s nodes, supported by the Secretariat, should engage with holders of data on theoccurrence of invasive and alien species to persuade them of the importance of publishingand updating such datasets through GBIF.org as soon as possible following theobservations, as this will provide researchers and policy makers with access to near realtime data on the spread of these species.
Darwin Core is the recommended and adopted standard for occurrence data (Appendix B.1).
But it has shortcomings in its current form that hinder its value for A&IS data and research.
Supporting necessary changes to Darwin Core fields and vocabularies is thus one key
component of improving fitness of data for use in A&IS research. On its own however, DwC
is probably inadequate to support the most essential A&IS information, and a range of othervocabularies and categorizations will need to be adopted and developed (Table 2) (e.g.
standards for checklists and inventories, Guralnick et al. in review).

Page 14 | 29

The unequivocal requirement from questionnaire respondents was that observations musthave a spatial resolution of 1km2 or smaller. Horizon scanning for potential new invasions
requires the least precise data, but users require precise data for rapid response, nichemodelling and impact assessment. Nevertheless, many data providers, particularly inEurope, obfuscate their data before publishing it on GBIF (Groom et al. 2016). In manycases the spatial resolution is reduced to 100 km2. The reasons for this probably vary; forexample, a conservation-based argument exists to protect the locations of endangered
species from collection or persecution. By contrast, however, no scientific or conservationarguments justify obfuscating alien species observations.
The recommendations provided in Table 2 below are divided into sections on taxonomy,
data quality, data quantity and data standards.

3. Expanding information content
Two categories of information expansion were identified: 1) information relating directly orclosely to occurrence data (alien and native range information, Table 3); and 2) a range ofother information types key to A&IS research—and the broader management and policy user
community—but currently not necessarily core business of GBIF (Table 3).

Enhancing occurrence data
The research community, supported by IUCN SSC and GEO BON, has identified occurrence
and alien status (native versus alien) by geographic location (at species and record level) as
two of the three essential variables for invasion monitoring (Latombe et al. 2016;
http://geobon.org/essential-biodiversity-variables/ebv-for-invasion-monitoring/). GBIF is well
positioned to be instrumental in supporting and enhancing the delivery of this information(see Appendix B.7 and B.10 for background on occurrence and range dynamics, alien andnative range status and absence data).

Other data and information types useful for A&IS research
A number of other critical variables relevant to A&IS research and currently largely notsupported by GBIF were identified. The recommended strategy for some of these is that
GBIF partner with other information providers to support these broader A&IS needs rather
than investing directly in facilitating access to such data (e.g. functional traits and pathways)(Figure 2, Table 1).
Some of these data types however are a priority for A&IS research, policy and management
and we suggest a range of options and solutions for how GBIF may support informationdelivery using, for example, data filters, links, annotation or checklists (by geographic
location) of species using categorical information from other sources (see Appendix B.6)
and/or via strategic partnerships (Table 3). For example, ‘habitat’ includes physical andbioregional information associated with occurrence, and modelling where species cancolonize and where to look from a detection perspective is critical for A&IS research, policy
and management.
We see an exceptional and timely opportunity for GBIF to be a catalyst in drawing together
disparate and existing data sets with key partners, leveraging diverse applications. For
example, GIASIP or GRIIS could provide a platform for synthesis of extensive available data,
which exist in many countries and regions, on mechanisms of introduction (pathways orPage 15 | 29

vectors, Ruiz et al. 2015) or the impact of species (Blackburn et al. 2014). Interaction
between GBIF and other data sources (as outlined in Box 1) could be approached on an
initial pilot scale; although many of these data sets are available and the types of analyses
envisioned are not new terrain (but the focus of decades of research). By demonstrating
their effectiveness and feasibility using a pilot, workflows could be optimized before scalingup.
One additional data type that did emerge as highly relevant and important to consider further
is information on species interactions (see Appendix B.8). Species interactions profoundly
influence the spread and impact of A&IS (Appendix B.9), with interactions between A&IS andbiocontrol agents or parasites/hosts being prime examples. Currently GBIF does not holdsuch information in a way that is useful for A&IS research, nor are data publishers always
providing these data. Although there are currently no widely available information sources for
species interactions, enabling and encouraging the capture of such data would contribute toprogress in this area. We outline three main areas where improvements may be made to
improve data fitness for use for species interactions (Appendix B.8).

4. Functionality: expansion and refinement
A key GBIF stakeholder group is those users who use GBIF.org as a source of global
information on species distributions (via occurrence records). They may not necessarily
publish using GBIF-mediated data, but they are active users, often in the area of A&IS
ecology and applied research. These users are unlikely to use the API to create
visualizations of data, but they need easy access to summaries that quickly impart
information related to biological invasions. The information they need is not just the specificdetails of occurrences and trends, but also information on biases in the data that facilitate adeeper understanding of what the data actually represent. Therefore, many of theserecommendations relate to the metadata that surround A&IS, notably the provision ofnational checklists and alien species status (Table 4).
Currently, users have four ways to access GBIF-mediated data:
1. Browsing and searching at GBIF.org (note the new faceted search function)
2. Filter and download from GBIF.org (22 filters for occurrence data)
3. Request custom download from help desk. Exceptional cases, limited availability.
4. Machine access through API
Likewise, GBIF currently support four types of datasets:
1. Metadata-only datasets describe collections that are not digitally available.
2. Checklists are regional, geographic or thematic enumerations of taxa without the
spatial and temporal data, other types of checklists, such as taxonomicallyfocused, special interest compilations, some may have occurrence records
attached.
3. Individual occurrence data have what-where-when information (taxonomy,collecting/observation date, locality information and coordinates).
4. Sampling-event data provides the information layer “wrapping” one or more
occurrences with metadata details on sampling methodology and sampling efforts,

Page 16 | 29

include lists and include abundance information in the form of species counts, biomass
or other quantitative data. An additional table would be valuable listing the collecting
events and their properties, and in the occurrences tables – event IDs, species counts= abundance information.

Dataset types
Function

Browsing andsearching at
GBIF.org

Filter anddownload from
GBIF.org

Machine accessthrough API

Metadata

Checklists

Occurrences

Sampling-event

+

+

+

-

Better communicate
value of GBIF for thispurposeBetter communicate
value of GBIF for thispurposeExpand attribute data,
especially for alien-native
statusDevelop and promoteuse of A&IS data
templates

-

-

+

-

Develop and promoteuse of A&IS data
templates

Implement A&IS
relevant filters

Enable extended filtering
by geographic andgovernance layers

+

+

+

Make more user friendly

Make more user friendly-

Figure 3. Summary of the data access functionality of GBIF.org as of October 2016, with a text summary of relevant expansions orrefinements of functionality for A&IS research (see Table 4 for further detail). Note that the function for requesting custom downloads
from the GBIF help desk is not included in this figure (while it may be available for each data type, it could be slow due to theSecretariat’s other priority tasks). Plus and minus signs refer to currently existing and non-existing functionality, respectively, alongwith side a brief description of their value to A&IS research.

Usability of the website was a common theme in the responses from the survey andimproving this will have many benefits to users and for the volume of traffic towards the
GBIF portal. Even for competent informaticians, a rapid means to explore the data helps tospark ideas and encourage further usage. Many of these functionality improvements aretargeted at GBIF itself, but data publishers also need to be aware that GBIF can only provide
some functionality if the data are sufficiently rich to support this.
The value of alien species occurrence and sampling-event data can be significantly
enhanced by enabling data extraction and providing relational data (such as information on
vectors or pathways) for particular, highly relevant A&IS applications. Key filters identified
thus far for GBIF-mediated occurrence and sampling-event data include land management
governance boundaries (such as country, state/province and protected areas). Key attributes
and/or derived data identified thus far include realm/environment, habitat, pathways andimpact data (Appendix B.10). An alert function for priority taxa would be very valuable, forexample, where anyone can "subscribe" to GBIF to obtain new record alerts for specifictarget taxa (see also Box 1). This would be very valuable both for research and managers,
for example for use in risk assessment and invasion management. While capability may not

Page 17 | 29

exist now in GBIF, it would not be a large investment for the research community to advise
on how to do it, making sure the functionality delivers what we would like to see for research.

5. Communication and engagement
The viewpoint that GBIF could do more to improve its visibility as a provider of access to
A&IS data was common across the communities consulted, and that it could actively
advertise and engage with a range of relevant potential partners, related activities and data
publishers (Table 5). The important role of GBIF to contribute to the formulation of data
standards for A&IS was also highlighted, and to avoid duplication of effort and maximize
complementarity by greater collaboration with other A&IS information platforms (e.g. UnitedStates Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov), Non-indigenous Aquatic Species(https://nas.er.usgs.gov), Global Invasive Species Database (http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd),
GRIIS (http://www.griis.org/), Map of Life (https://mol.org) and Encyclopedia of Life
(http://eol.org).
GBIF has an established international data network and a network of national GBIF nodes
that provide biodata services within the countries as well as training and guidance. Currently
a significant proportion of data accessed through GBIF are observation data gathered
through Citizen Science networks (e.g. Avian Knowledge Network) and output from surveys.
All these data are available through the infrastructure provided by the GBIF Web-portal.
Users can extract data from an integrated repository of data from a suite of data publishers.
The A&IS research and the wider community are not the ‘traditional users’ of GBIF. Targetedcommunication and increased engagement, such as synergy with existing initiatives,
developing dedicated A&IS data publisher and user networks are key to the involvement of
this community.

Top priorities and key recommendations for improving the data
fitness for use for alien and invasive species
Alien species occurrence includes taxonomically verified species presence or absence
records at a locality with a geographic co-ordinate, or in a prescribed area, management or
geopolitical unit or site (Latombe et al. 2016). Alien species occurrence information is the
single most important variable necessary to support research, monitoring andmanagement of A&IS. It is also one that requires in-situ collection from countries both withand without capacity to do so. Such data are the core of GBIF’s mandate, and GBIF is best
positioned to provide open access to information of this nature. We therefore cannotemphasize more strongly how important GBIF is to this endeavour.
In conclusion, the following key themes emerged from the activities of the Task Group andare considered top priorities as part of an Alien and Invasive Species Data Strategy
supported by GBIF. Several recommendations are relevant to other data users, but theavailability and timeliness of these data are especially critical for A&IS because of the realworld consequences resulting from the negative impacts of biological invasions.
1. GBIF could increase its capacity as an essential hub for A&IS data. As an open
data facility with an international mandate (see Appendix B.2), it is in a key position
to advance data delivery and integration in support of A&IS research, policy andPage 18 | 29

management. As a neutral party, GBIF also has an essential role to play insupporting the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership (GIASIP) toadvance data delivery and their broad application.
2. An essential part of the strategy to improve fitness for use of A&IS data is toincrease communication with national nodes to encourage urgent publication ofdata on A&IS to GBIF. For example, geographic coverage can be increased byhaving more partner countries and possibly targeted campaigns to increase species
distribution data and increase resources available to do this.
3. An additional feature on the GBIF website is recommended to improve functionality
for A&IS information and to increase its visibility, to show that the GBIF
infrastructure is useful for this purpose and to attract data holders to publish data.
This includes developing key partnerships to expand the range of A&IS relevant
information accessible via GBIF, such as information on pathways/vectors.
4. GBIF’s support for changes to Darwin Core and other necessary standards, andcontrolled vocabularies relevant to A&IS to enable functionality in GBIF to support
A&IS research, is central to this strategy.
5. The following data and information improvements are essential to support fitness foruse of A&IS data:•

More geographically extensive and timely occurrence data that targets alien
and invasive species•

Geographic origin is included and data are explicit about taxa or records thatare in captivity or cultivated versus those that are in the wild.

•

Explicit identification of the native and non-native ranges of A&IS at species
and occurrence record levels.

•

Additional information on the mechanism of introduction (pathways or vectors),
biome, and habitat for species.

•

Enhancements to identify outliers and spurious records that improve the overall
quality and utility of A&IS data.

Finally, a range of opportunities exist for GBIF to continue to engage the researchcommunity to support its A&IS efforts, for example, to conduct gap analyses, articulate thenecessary conceptual frameworks and ontologies to improve A&IS data fitness for use, toassist with evaluating the effectiveness of actions to implement the recommendations
outlined here and to continue to promote the value of GBIF for this purpose.

Page 19 | 29

Tables
Table 1. Strategic approaches and interventions
Recommendation

Agent

Priority /Timeline

Approach

What difference will it make?

1.1 Develop an Alien and Invasive
Species Data Strategy to improvedata fitness for use, including a
logically structured model of
information needs for A&IS and whichof these GBIF may support

Secretariat

High Priority /Short-term

Conceptual development as presented in part in thisreport, as input into an Alien and Invasive Species Data
Strategy.

Strategic, effective and efficient progress towards
improving data fitness for use for A&IS

1.2 Increase the number of countries in
the GBIF network

Secretariat,
GIASIPHigh Priority /Long-term

More countries to be encouraged to join GBIF, inter alia
to benefit from the A&IS data available via GBIF

Better geographic coverage of species, more funds
for GBIF, international collaboration on biologicalinvasions facilitated, and countries aided to meetinternational obligations (e.g. under the CBD)

1.3 As an evidence-based and nationallyverified list of species we recommend
the use of GRIIS for targeting andprioritizing the update, cleaning,
completion and creation of relevant
filters for this group of species data in
GBIF

Secretariat,
Nodes, Global
Invasive Alien
Species
Information
Partnership(GIASIP)High Priority /Short to medium
term

Communicate strategy. Prioritize relevant investment
and activity by focussing effort on species in this list.
GIASIP to run a communication campaign, and provide
resources. This is a strategic recommendation to render
the list of tasks feasible by focussing efforts on a subset
of taxa considered to be high priority A&IS.

Rapid progress on priority taxa to support research,
policy and management, including Aichi Target 9’s
focus on high priority taxa (McGeoch et al. 2016).

GBIF Board (GB)
1.4 Retain essential information andservices that GBIF already provides insupport of A&IS, especially taxonomic
information, occurrence records, andweb services
1.5 Promote international standards for
A&IS information and work with otherdata providers to achieve this (seeRecommendation on DwC, Appendix
B.1).

Secretariat, Nodes

Support Secretariat to sustain these services
High Priority /Short-term and ongoing

Ensure sustainability of critical open source service
provided by GBIF for this key threat to biodiversity(Groom et al. 2015, Appendix B.2)

High Priority /Play a leadership role. Adopt a consensual approach,
Short-term and on- e.g. via an initiative similar to the recommendation of
going
adopting the CBD Pathways Classification by the(UNEP 2014, Essl et al. 2015). Support necessarychanges to Darwin Core fields and vocabularies, othercontrolled vocabularies, and relevant data andinformation standards.

Important changes in the standard of DwC to support
A&IS data will be introduced and incorporated into
future versions of Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT)
for adequate publication of data on A&IS (Appendix
B.1)

Page 20 | 29

1.6 Ensure that the results of eDNA
research are preserved without losing
information

Secretariat,
Genbank

High Priority /Short-term

See Appendix B.3. Include a strategy for eDNA data
publication into Alien and Invasive Species Data
Strategy.

This is part of ensuring that GBIF remain relevant andprepared for scientific and technical developments
relevant to A&IS (Chown et al. 2015).

Agent

Priority andTimeline

Approach

What difference will it make?

2.1 More detailed explanation oftaxonomic uncertainties, including
comprehensive information onsynonyms

GBIF (as ataxonomic editor
for A&IS)

High priority /Short-term

Refer to TDWG/GBIF Data Quality Interest Group.
(http://www.tdwg.org). Mapping filters by geography toevaluate feasibility; open (crowdsource) opportunity forscoring or flagging data quality of suspect errors; also,
encourage submission of potential
corrections/suspected errors from papers/analyses.

Addresses the error rate and consistently improves
quality in species x location records. By specifying
the confidence in taxonomic accuracy users will be
more inclined to use GBIF.

2.2 Improve the GBIF taxonomic
backbone

Taxonomists,
Catalogue of Life

Moderate priority /On-going

GBIF to provide a leadership role

Taxonomy is critical to all activities.

2.3 Improve mechanisms for identifying
and correcting errors

Publishers,
Nodes,
Secretariat

High priority /On-going

Improve GBIF data-quality filters and feedback
mechanisms to data publishers
Nodes to provide a link and advice

Survey respondents considered this a high priority,
so very important to ensure that end users continue
to use and trust GBIF

2.4 Data publishers should not obfuscate
records of alien and invasive species.

Publishers,
Nodes,
Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

If there is coding that identifies a species as alien, thenit will be easy to filter and so ensure data on natives
are not compromised. Once alien status is coded, it
could be done immediately if there is political willMore accurate records so better for modellingHigh priority /Long-term

Expand communication of GBIF to a broader set ofstakeholders (such as agricultural advisory services).
Target data on pests and pathogens often housed ingovernment or applied research institutes (e.g.
Regional and National Plant Protection Organisations).
Increase number of countries in GBIF network.

Better data on some of the most damaging alien
species

Table 2. Improving existing data
Recommendation
Taxonomy

Data quality

Increasing quantity of data accessible via GBIF
2.5 Source data from novel sources andproviders, in particular to increase
taxonomic representivity

Secretariat,
Nodes, GIASIP

Page 21 | 29

2.6 Capture data that people haveaccumulated over their careers fromarchives and from Journals. Many
researchers have needs to place theirdata somewhere. GBIF has role toplay—mutual benefit.

Secretariat,
Publishers,
Researchers

High priority /Long-term

Develop and implement a strategy, reach out tocommunity including scientists about to retire that havebig datasets

More baseline data of invasions. Reducing wastageof research funding.

2.7 New data on occurrence of invasive
and alien species should be
published through GBIF.org as soon
as possible after observations arerecorded

Publishers,
Nodes,
Secretariat

Moderate priority /Ongoing

More frequent national updates, enable rapid
publication of new records. Data workflows automatedto minimize the lag time. Will involve direct
engagement with relevant data holders by GBIF nodes
and Secretariat

More responsive indicators. Near real-time
publication through GBIF.org creates potential for‘live’ monitoring of I & AS spread and early warning
alerts

2.8 Taxonomists could be encouraged to
publish checklists to GBIF

Nodes, Publishers

Moderate priority /Ongoing

Publication of a new flora or fauna should prompt
submission of checklist data to GBIF

More authoritative lists of species for countries,
information on native and alien status will be clearer

Data standards, controlled vocabularies and categorisation processes
2.9 Adapt Darwin Core to address theneeds of researchers and managers
working on alien species

TDWG,
Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

see Appendix B.1 (Discussion at TDWG Dec 2016;
should be implemented by end of 2017 at latest)

Currently GBIF is not fit for purpose for work on alien
species as it requires users to separately identify
occurrence records and their alien/native status

2.10 Design and implement new
standards for information ondispersal vectors both at the
species-level and geographic-levelthat is explicit about how these havechanged through time

GIASIP,
Secretariat

High priority /Medium- term

see Appendix B.4

Needed to comply with spirit of Aichi Target 9, will
help pathway management lessons be transferred

2.11 Need standard protocols for defining
native ranges

Secretariat,
Researchers(GEO BON)

High priority /Medium- term

See Appendix B.5. Research needed and community
engaged. Existing protocols need to be reviewed. A
consideration of how species will respond to globalchange.

This is fundamental to invasion science, and will
resolve some uncertainty.

2.12 Design and implement new
standards for information on
species- and geographic-level
attributes relevant to biologicalinvasions

TDWG, GRIIS,GIASIP, CABIHigh priority /Medium- term

See Appendix B.6. Coding for traits, use of pre-existing
standards
Coding for status of populations (e.g. impact
mechanisms and levels, Hawkins et al. 2015)

For example, facilitate comparisons between invasive
species for use in risk analyses

Page 22 | 29

Other
2.13 Provide more links to references andrelated information sources

Publishers

Low priority /Medium- term

Data publishers to use permanent identifiers

Improve confidence in the quality of the data, andtheir ability to track data provenance2.14 Encourage data collectors to record
resolution at the appropriate scale
for the organism

Publishers,
Nodes,
Secretariat

Low priority /On-going

Produce training material, develop and promote theuse of relevant A&IS data templates.

Better data

Table 3. Expanding information content
Recommendation

Agent

Priority andTimeline

Approach

What difference will it make?

3.1 Identify data layer source(s) thatclassify species x location as native,
non-native, cryptogenic.

Secretariat,
NodesHigh priority /Short-term

Develop partnerships that build on one of several existingdata resources for vectors, including GIASIP. Working
group of partner organizations, to establish standard
approach, framework, and operation; possibly begin bypilot project before scaling up. Review and use
classification framework that is consistent with existing(e.g., IUCN, CBD, etc.). Appendix B.5

Tractability of invasion dynamics and spread, bygeographic region and taxa. Provides core data forresearch and for user countries and legal
frameworks.

3.2 Record level: Distinguish current from
historical distribution

Secretariat,
Publishers

High priority /Short-term

Tag records as native, non-native or unknown. Absence
records are important here. Enable and promotefunctionality to achieve this. Appendix B.5, 7,10.

Critical to research, policy and management of
biological invasions, this information was the mostfrequently mentioned priority in the survey

3.3 Species level: Flagging ofprovenance of species, inclusion ofnative range/ alien range

Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

Appendix B.5, 6,10

This information is critical to research, policy andmanagement of biological invasions and was themost frequently mentioned priority in the data fitness
for use A&IS survey

3.4 Record level: Distinguish whether arecord is within or outside captivity or
cultivation.

Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

Records could be tagged as within captivity or cultivation.

This information is critical to research, policy andmanagement of biological invasions, especially for
SDMs. This is the set on which future invasion may
come from, and the data that can indicate wheninvasions have not happened despite some
opportunity for them.

Alien and native range information

Appendix B.6

Page 23 | 29

Other forms of data relevant to A&IS
3.5 Habitat characteristics

Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

Add physical characteristics such as elevation/depth,
temp, salinity, substrate type to collection/occurrence
records; same may apply to biome (esp. since thischanges over time per location). GBIF could include
these in occurrence records as standard in Darwin Core.
Develop and promote use of data templates.

Improves estimation of realized niche and particular
habitat distribution—both to characterize occurrence,
impact, and inform detection/management

3.6 Vector data

Secretariat,
GIASIPHigh priority /Short-term

See Appendix B.4. Working group of partnerorganizations, to establish standard approach,framework, and operation; possibly begin by pilot project
before scaling up. Vector designations at fine level
require standardization of existing schemes (which canbe readily achieved by the research community). Develop
partnerships that build on one of several existing data
resources for vectors including GIASIP.

Associating A&IS species and records with vector
information will contribute significantly to better
understanding variation in habitat use and dispersal
mechanisms.

3.7 Include survey/sampling effort
estimates

Publishers

Moderatepriority/ Short-term

Build into sampling-event data / survey data strategy

Essential to enable abundance and impact inferences
as well as reliability of apparent absence information(Appendix B.10).

3.8 Species interactions (hostassociations, biocontrol agents)

Secretariat,
GIASIP,
Researchers

Moderatepriority/ Long-term

See Appendix B.7 on Interactions. Working group ofpartner organizations, to establish standard approach,framework, and operation; possibly begin by pilot project
before scaling up.

Such data will support research to understandbiological invasions and their impacts (e.g. Ruiz et al.
1999).

3.9 Impact data

Secretariat

Moderatepriority/ Short-term

Develop partnerships that build on existing data
resources for impacts, see Blackburn et al. 2014,
Hawkins et al. 2015. Appendix B.9

Enables tracking of A&IS for early alerts and also toprioritize data collection campaigns in order topredict/understand invasion dynamics/impacts oftarget species. Serves diverse end-users in science,
management, and policy. These are the species thatserve as metrics for ecosystem management (CBD)
and also focal species for biosecurity.

3.10 Functional traits, physiology,
cultivars

Secretariat

Low priority /Long-term

Identify and develop partnerships with relevant dataholders. Develop partnerships that build on existing /emerging data resources for traits.

Critical for analysing and predicting performance of
A&IS, e.g. what makes some taxa have more
"success" and impact. Informs policy prioritization toprevent/manage invasions and prediction of species
response to forcing functions like climate change.
Page 24 | 29

3.11 Abundance data

GBIF catalyzes
with partner orgs,
Nodes

Low priority /Long-term

Promote abundance measures as part of "samplingevent data" strategy, using several model systems ofhigh impact "priority" species (Appendix B.11); thisbecome focus of collaborative working group; good target
for pilot to demonstrate and promote

These data are needed to better understand theimpact of biological invasions and create bettermodels of invasion.

Table 4. Expanding and refining functionality
Recommendation

Agent

Priority andTimeline

Approach

What difference will it make?

4.1 Dynamic visualizations of alien
species data trends and “gaps”, byregion, taxa, and groups

Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

Visualizations. It would be interesting to do this bycomparison with “native” species. E.g. Express
accumulation of records for species in GRIIS, temporal
trends in records accumulated per species and per
country, trends in number of species and number of‘invasive’ species listed on GRIIS

Encouraging data publication

4.2 Enable generation of maps of firstand last record generated for eachcountry/TDWG region from data on
GBIF

Secretariat

Moderatepriority/ Short-term

Pre-generated maps created at monthly intervals

A rapid overview of data that indicates data coverageand introduction. It will become easy for users toassess the data quality. A motivating tool toencourage data provision.

4.3 Make the data easier to use, easier toextract and contribute information to(Plugin for QGIS, tool to make iteasier to construct api queries) Userfriendly and simple access that does
not require IT experts

Secretariat

High priority /Medium- term

Training sessions at relevant conferences. More userfriendly interface and/or guidance online on how to do it.

GBIF would be accessible to a much broader userbase.

4.4 Assess the new GBIF website interms of its data access anduseability

Secretariat(possibly througha new Working
Group)High priority /Medium- term

Set up a working group and consultation process
specifically targeted to assess the usability of thewebsite. This must include casual users and those
without experience or proficiency with APIs, GIS.

Make GBIF.org more user-friendly and encourage
return visits. A common comment received was thatthe previous GBIF website was not intuitive and hardto navigate even for experts.

4.5 Checklists derived from occurrences
made available for each country, that
include all taxonomic groups with thenative or introduced status of eachtaxon

Publishers,
Secretariat,
GIASIPHigh priority /Medium- term

Updates of the respecitve GBIF.org pages

This would provide summary statistics for alien
species in each country. It would give information on
the species present in the trading partners of acountry, which would be useful for watch lists andhorizon scanning.

Rapid assessment of risk and status
Help to prioritize the filling of key data gaps

Page 25 | 29

4.6 Provide key links from species pages
to related and supplementary
information sources on A&IS

Secretariat,
GIASIP &External portals

Moderatepriority/ Long-term

External links to resources for A&IS impact assessments
to evaluate space and time-dependent indicators ofinvasion effects (Appendix B.9).

Improved awareness of which species are invasive
and the impacts caused.

4.7 Alert systems for particular species ofinterest to individuals andorganizations by region, e.g. using
GRIIS as a filter. Able to identify
outliers that could indicate the first
spread of an organism.

Secretariat or,ideally, external
portals using
GBIF API

Moderatepriority/ Long-term

Alerts

Better surveillance and rapid response tools forinvasive organisms. Better prioritization and more
rapid updating of prohibited lists. (Appendix B.11)
Could also facilitate targeted “detection campaigns”.
Improved validation of outlying observations.

4.8 More and more suitable filters whensearching for observations—particularly for searches within a user
defined polygon, realm/environment,
habitat, pathways, impact data, land
use and by the native status

Secretariat toprovide theinfrastructure andproviders andpublishers toprovide more andricher data

High priority /Medium- term

Spatial filters for data types other than occurrences, suchas custom biogeographic or protected area filters, withplug-in for QGIS. Use the field 'Origin' in DwC as a filter.
Filter by list and by the shape file

Increases the usefulness of occurrence data, such as
assessing invasion risk for particular protected areas.
Countries trying to minimize invasions need to know
how many species per realm over time for example,
the relative extent of invasion in different ecosystems.
Biosecurity management. Easier to join data withother databases on invasive species such as World
Database of Protected Areas, World Register ofIntroduced Marine Species

4.9 Critical annotation of data records,
e.g. flag outliers, corrected records(see also Table 3.4)

Secretariat
Publishers

High priority /Short-term

Enable users to report errors as annotations. Someannotations might be automated. Secretariat to provide amechanism, Publishers, an annotation process

An enrichment of the data. Allow rapid feedback topublishers. Reducing the duplication of effort whencleaning data.

4.10 Inclusion of key location types andcodes that are relevant to theinvasive species issue such as
islands, protected areas and otherrecognisedZ areas of highbiodiversity value such as Important
Plant Areas, Important Bird Areas
etc.

Secretariat,
external partners

High priority /Short-term

Spatial layers. Allow users to map biogeographic regions
over the data (e.g. MEOW ecoregions).

Rapid assessment of the potential impact of invasion.
Provide functionality to users with a poor IT
proficiency to use the data. A quick overview showing
the bioclimatic envelope that the organism exists in.

4.11 GBIF to provide usage statistics at adata publisher level

Secretariat

Low priority /Short-term

Yearly download data for each dataset. Clear andtrackable statistics that can be used in the annual reportof an organization.

This will encourage data publishers to monitor theusage of their data and promote good stewardship of
their data.

Page 26 | 29

4.12 Facilitate expanded web services(e.g. filtersf) focused on the needsof the A&IS stakeholder community

Secretariat

Currently no A&IS specific filters

High priority /Medium- term

Table 5. Communicating with and engaging the A&IS community
Recommendation

Agent

Priority andTimeline

Approach

What difference will it make?

5.1 Establish/flag a specific A&IS entry
route (or specific page/website) into
the Facility

Secretariat

High priority /Short-term

Website pages that channel users and/or profile what
GBIF can do and is planning to do for A&IS research,
policy and management

Greater participation by the A&IS researchcommunity, both as users and as data publishers

5.2 Improve the visibility and credibility ofthe site for A&IS information

Secretariat

High priority /Medium-term

Promote use through training sessions, guidance etc.

Involve a much broader community of researchers in
GBIF

5.3 Engage with and encourage a range
of information providers/publishers
including A&IS expert networks,
researchers, relevant journals andthematic information providers tocontribute data to GBIF

Secretariat, Nodes

Moderatepriority/ Medium-term

Increased engagement and collaboration with a range of
A&IS data publishers

A richer, better linked system

5.4 Incentivize data publishers (Profilingdata publishers ranging fromresearchers to citizen scientists)

Secretariat

Moderatepriority/ Medium-term

Profiling data publishers/ small grants/

Greater participation by the A&IS data publishers

5.5 Increased synergy with existing A&IS
related initiatives at the global,
regional and national level (to avoid
duplication of effort)

Secretariat,
GIASIP, Nodes

Moderatepriority /Medium-term

Increased engagement and collaboration with a range of
A&IS data publishers

A richer, better linked system

Page 27 | 29

References
Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T et al. (2014) A Unified Classification of Alien Species Basedon the Magnitude of their Environmental Impacts. PLoS Biology 12(5): e1001850.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850
Carlton JT & Ruiz JA (2005) Vector science and integrated vector management inbioinvasion ecology: conceptual frameworks. In Invasive alien species: a new synthesis
Mooney HA et al., eds., 36-58. Washington: Island Press.
Chown SL, Hodgins KA, Griffin PC, Oakeshott JG, Byrne M & Hoffmann AA (2015)
Biological invasions, climate change and genomics. Evolutionary Applications 8(1): 2346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12234
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2016) TARGET 9 - Technical Rationale extended(provided in document COP/10/INF/12/Rev.1)
https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-9
Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM et al. (2015) Crossing frontiers in tackling pathways of
biological invasions. Bioscience 65(8): 769-782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv082
Feeley KJ & Silman MR (2011) Keep collecting: accurate species distribution modelling
requires more collections than previously thought. Diversity and Distributions 17(6):1132-1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00813.x
Groom QJ, Desmet P, Vanderhoeven S & Adriaens T (2015) The importance of open datafor invasive alien species research, policy and management. Management of BiologicalInvasions 6: 119-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.02
Groom Q, Weatherdon L & Geijzendorffer IR (2016) Is citizen science an open science in thecase of biodiversity observations? Journal of Applied Ecology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12767
Guralnick RP, Walls RL & Jetz W (2016) Humboldt Core – toward a standardized capture of
biological inventories for biodiversity monitoring, modeling and assessment. Ecography,
in review.
Hawkins CL, Bacher S, Essl F et al. (2015) Framework and guidelines for implementing the
proposed IUCN environmental impact classification for alien taxa (EICAT). Diversity andDistributions 21(1): 1360-1363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12379
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)(2016) Invasive Alien Species- Deliverable 3(b)(ii): Thematic assessment on invasive
alien species and their control. http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/invasive-alienspecieshttp://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/invasive-alien-species
Latombe G, Pyšek P, Jeschke JM et al. (2016) A vision for global monitoring of biologicalinvasions. Biological Conservation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.013
McGeoch MA, Genovesi P, Bellingham PJ et al. (2016) Prioritizing species, pathways, andsites to achieve conservation targets for biological invasion. Biological Invasions 18:
299-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1013-1

Page 28 | 29

McGeoch MA, Spear D, Kleynhans EJ et al. (2012) Uncertainty in invasive alien species
listing. Ecological Applications 22(3): 959-971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/11-1252.1
Ruiz GM, Fofonoff P, Hines AH, & Grosholz ED (1999) Nonindigenous species as stressors
in estuarine and marine communities: Assessing impacts and interactions. Limnology
and Oceanography 44(3:2): 950-972.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.1999.44.3_part_2.0950
Ruiz GM, Fofonoff P, Steves B & Dahlstrom A (2011a) Marine crustacean invasions in North
America: A synthesis of historical records and documented impacts. In In the Wrong
Place — Alien Crustaceans: Distribution, Biology and Impacts, Galil BS, Clark PF &Carlton JT, eds., 215-250. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0070591-3
Ruiz GM, Fofonoff PW, Steves B, Foss SF, Shiba SN (2011b) Marine invasion history andvector analysis of California: A hotspot for western North America. Diversity andDistributions 17(2): 362-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00742.x
Ruiz GM, Fofonoff PW, Steves BP, Carlton JT (2015) Invasion history and vector dynamics
in coastal marine ecosystems: a North American perspective. Aquatic Ecosystem Healthand Management 3: 299-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2015.1027534
UNEP (2014) Pathways of introduction of invasive species, their prioritization andmanagement. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/9/Add.1, subsidiary body on scientific, technicaland technological advice, eighteenth meeting, Montreal.
www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-18/official/sbstta-18-09-add1-en.pdf. Decision
XII/17 CBD COP12Page 29 | 29