128
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares

      Publish your biodiversity research with us!

      Submit your article here.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Connecting data and expertise: a new alliance for biodiversity knowledge

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract

          There has been major progress over the last two decades in digitising historical knowledge of biodiversity and in making biodiversity data freely and openly accessible. Interlocking efforts bring together international partnerships and networks, national, regional and institutional projects and investments and countless individual contributors, spanning diverse biological and environmental research domains, government agencies and non-governmental organisations, citizen science and commercial enterprise. However, current efforts remain inefficient and inadequate to address the global need for accurate data on the world's species and on changing patterns and trends in biodiversity. Significant challenges include imbalances in regional engagement in biodiversity informatics activity, uneven progress in data mobilisation and sharing, the lack of stable persistent identifiers for data records, redundant and incompatible processes for cleaning and interpreting data and the absence of functional mechanisms for knowledgeable experts to curate and improve data.

          Recognising the need for greater alignment between efforts at all scales, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) convened the second Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC2) in July 2018 to propose a coordination mechanism for developing shared roadmaps for biodiversity informatics. GBIC2 attendees reached consensus on the need for a global alliance for biodiversity knowledge, learning from examples such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) and the open software communities under the Apache Software Foundation. These initiatives provide models for multiple stakeholders with decentralised funding and independent governance to combine resources and develop sustainable solutions that address common needs.

          This paper summarises the GBIC2 discussions and presents a set of 23 complementary ambitions to be addressed by the global community in the context of the proposed alliance. The authors call on all who are responsible for describing and monitoring natural systems, all who depend on biodiversity data for research, policy or sustainable environmental management and all who are involved in developing biodiversity informatics solutions to register interest at https://biodiversityinformatics.org/ and to participate in the next steps to establishing a collaborative alliance.

          The supplementary materials include brochures in a number of languages (English, Arabic, Spanish, Basque, French, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). These summarise the need for an alliance for biodiversity knowledge and call for collaboration in its establishment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A decadal view of biodiversity informatics: challenges and priorities

          Biodiversity informatics plays a central enabling role in the research community's efforts to address scientific conservation and sustainability issues. Great strides have been made in the past decade establishing a framework for sharing data, where taxonomy and systematics has been perceived as the most prominent discipline involved. To some extent this is inevitable, given the use of species names as the pivot around which information is organised. To address the urgent questions around conservation, land-use, environmental change, sustainability, food security and ecosystem services that are facing Governments worldwide, we need to understand how the ecosystem works. So, we need a systems approach to understanding biodiversity that moves significantly beyond taxonomy and species observations. Such an approach needs to look at the whole system to address species interactions, both with their environment and with other species. It is clear that some barriers to progress are sociological, basically persuading people to use the technological solutions that are already available. This is best addressed by developing more effective systems that deliver immediate benefit to the user, hiding the majority of the technology behind simple user interfaces. An infrastructure should be a space in which activities take place and, as such, should be effectively invisible. This community consultation paper positions the role of biodiversity informatics, for the next decade, presenting the actions needed to link the various biodiversity infrastructures invisibly and to facilitate understanding that can support both business and policy-makers. The community considers the goal in biodiversity informatics to be full integration of the biodiversity research community, including citizens’ science, through a commonly-shared, sustainable e-infrastructure across all sub-disciplines that reliably serves science and society alike.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Towards a biodiversity knowledge graph

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data

              Abstract Growing concerns about the quality of aggregated biodiversity data are lowering trust in large-scale data networks. Aggregators frequently respond to quality concerns by recommending that biologists work with original data providers to correct errors ‘at the source.’ We show that this strategy falls systematically short of a full diagnosis of the underlying causes of distrust. In particular, trust in an aggregator is not just a feature of the data signal quality provided by the sources to the aggregator, but also a consequence of the social design of the aggregation process and the resulting power balance between individual data contributors and aggregators. The latter have created an accountability gap by downplaying the authorship and significance of the taxonomic hierarchies—frequently called ‘backbones’—they generate, and which are in effect novel classification theories that operate at the core of data-structuring process. The Darwin Core standard for sharing occurrence records plays an under-appreciated role in maintaining the accountability gap, because this standard lacks the syntactic structure needed to preserve the taxonomic coherence of data packages submitted for aggregation, potentially leading to inferences that no individual source would support. Since high-quality data packages can mirror competing and conflicting classifications, i.e. unsettled systematic research, this plurality must be accommodated in the design of biodiversity data integration. Looking forward, a key directive is to develop new technical pathways and social incentives for experts to contribute directly to the validation of taxonomically coherent data packages as part of a greater, trustworthy aggregation process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biodivers Data J
                Biodivers Data J
                1
                urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:f9b2e808-c883-5f47-b276-6d62129e4ff4
                urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:245B00E9-BFE5-4B4F-B76E-15C30BA74C02
                Biodiversity Data Journal
                Pensoft Publishers
                1314-2828
                2019
                08 March 2019
                : 7
                : e33679
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat, Copenhagen, Denmark Global Biodiversity Information Facility Secretariat Copenhagen Denmark
                [2 ] Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, Colombia Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt Bogotá Colombia
                [3 ] Vertnet, Florida, United States of America Vertnet Florida United States of America
                [4 ] University of Colorado, Boulder; University of Colorado Museum of Natural History, Boulder, United States of America University of Colorado, Boulder; University of Colorado Museum of Natural History Boulder United States of America
                [5 ] Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, United States of America Univ. of Florida Gainesville United States of America
                [6 ] Naturalis, Amsterdam, Netherlands Naturalis Amsterdam Netherlands
                [7 ] Kookmin University, Seoul, South Korea Kookmin University Seoul South Korea
                [8 ] Monash University, Clayton, Australia Monash University Clayton Australia
                [9 ] African Academy of Sciences, Nairobi, Kenya African Academy of Sciences Nairobi Kenya
                [10 ] German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, Leipzig, Germany German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research Leipzig Germany
                [11 ] Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève Geneva Switzerland
                [12 ] Smithsonian Libraries/Biodiversity Heritage Library, Washington, DC, United States of America Smithsonian Libraries/Biodiversity Heritage Library Washington, DC United States of America
                [13 ] VertNet, Bariloche, Argentina VertNet Bariloche Argentina
                [14 ] Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, United States of America Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California Berkeley United States of America
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Donald Hobern ( dhobern@ 123456gbif.org ).

                Academic editor: Vincent Smith

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6492-4016
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6590-599X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0407-1805
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2706-1124
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2919-1168
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1144-0290
                Article
                33679 10639 urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:ee62fc3c-ab84-5071-b59d-6f51876c338f
                10.3897/BDJ.7.e33679
                6420472
                30886531
                a66f6bb4-7d23-445e-9cae-7852de74831f

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.

                History
                : 05 February 2019
                : 04 March 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, References: 9
                Categories
                Forum Paper

                biodiversity,biodiversity data,biodiversity informatics,gbic2,alliance,collaboration,data quality,sustainability,research infrastructure,open science,open data,investment

                Comments

                Comment on this article