published: 30 June 2017
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 1June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Queen Mary University of London,
University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Davide Francesco Tagliapietra,
ISMAR-Marine Sciences Institute in
Venice (CNR), Italy
Quentin J. Groom
This article was submitted to
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and
Received: 12 March 2017
Accepted: 15 June 2017
Published: 30 June 2017
Groom QJ, Adriaens T, Desmet P,
Simpson A, De Wever A, Bazos I,
Cardoso AC, Charles L,
Christopoulou A, Gazda A,
Helmisaari H, Hobern D, Josefsson M,
Lucy F, Marisavljevic D, Oszako T,
Pergl J, Petrovic-Obradovic O,
Prévot C, Ravn HP, Richards G,
Roques A, Roy HE, Rozenberg M-AA,
Scalera R, Tricarico E, Trichkova T,
Vercayie D, Zenetos A and
Vanderhoeven S (2017) Seven
Recommendations to Make Your
Invasive Alien Species Data More
Useful. Front. Appl. Math. Stat. 3:13.
Seven Recommendations to Make
Your Invasive Alien Species Data
Quentin J. Groom 1*, Tim Adriaens2, Peter Desmet 2, Annie Simpson 3, Aaike De Wever 4,
Ioannis Bazos 5, Ana Cristina Cardoso 6, Lucinda Charles 7, Anastasia Christopoulou 5,
Anna Gazda 8, Harry Helmisaari 9, Donald Hobern 10, Melanie Josefsson 11 , Frances Lucy 12,
Dragana Marisavljevic 13, Tomasz Oszako 14, Jan Pergl 15, Olivera Petrovic-Obradovic 16 ,
Céline Prévot 17, Hans P. Ravn18 , Gareth Richards 7, Alain Roques 19, Helen E. Roy 20 ,
Marie-Anne A. Rozenberg 19, Riccardo Scalera 21 , Elena Tricarico 22, Teodora Trichkova 23 ,
Diemer Vercayie 24, Argyro Zenetos 25 and Sonia Vanderhoeven 26
1Botanic Garden Meise, Bouchout Domain, Meise, Belgium, 2Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Brussels, Belgium,
3U.S. Geological Survey, Core Science Analytics, Synthesis, and Libraries Program, Reston, VA, United States, 4Aquatic and
Terrestrial Ecology, Operational Directorate Natural Environment, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels,
Belgium, 5Department of Ecology and Systematics, Faculty of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Panepistimiopolis, Greece, 6EASIN, European Commission Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Joint Research
Centre, Ispra, Italy, 7CABI, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 8Department of Forest Biodiversity,
University of Agriculture in Krakow, Krakow, Poland, 9Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland, 10 Global Biodiversity
Information Facility, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden, 12 CERIS,
Institute of Technology, Sligo, Ireland, 13 Institute for Plant Protection and Environment, Belgrade, Serbia, 14 Forest Research
Institute, Raszyn, Poland, 15 Department of Invasion Ecology, Institute of Botany, The Czech Academy of Sciences,
uhonice, Czechia, 16 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, 17 SPW-DEMNA, Département de
l’Étude du Milieu Naturel et Agricole, Gembloux, Belgium, 18 Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management,
Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 19 INRA, UR633, Zoologie Forestière, Orléans,
France, 20 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 21 IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group,
Rome, Italy, 22 Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italy, 23 Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences, Soﬁa, Bulgaria, 24 Natuurpunt, Mechelen, Belgium, 25 Institute of Marine Biological Resources and
Inland Waters, HCMR, Anavyssos, Greece, 26 Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Walloon Research Department for Nature and
Agricultural Areas, Service Public de Wallonie, Gembloux, Belgium
Science-based strategies to tackle biological invasions depend on recent, accurate,
well-documented, standardized and openly accessible information on alien species.
Currently and historically, biodiversity data are scattered in numerous disconnected data
silos that lack interoperability. The situation is no different for alien species data, and
this obstructs efﬁcient retrieval, combination, and use of these kinds of information
for research and policy-making. Standardization and interoperability are particularly
important as many alien species related research and policy activities require pooling
data. We describe seven ways that data on alien species can be made more accessible
and useful, based on the results of a European Cooperation in Science and Technology
(COST) workshop: (1) Create data management plans; (2) Increase interoperability of
information sources; (3) Document data through metadata; (4) Format data using existing
standards; (5) Adopt controlled vocabularies; (6) Increase data availability; and (7) Ensure
long-term data preservation. We identify four properties speciﬁc and integral to alien
species data (species status, introduction pathway, degree of establishment, and impact
mechanism) that are either missing from existing data standards or lack a recommended
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
controlled vocabulary. Improved access to accurate, real-time and historical data will
repay the long-term investment in data management infrastructure, by providing more
accurate, timely and realistic assessments and analyses. If we improve core biodiversity
data standards by developing their relevance to alien species, it will allow the automation
of common activities regarding data processing in support of environmental policy.
Furthermore, we call for considerable effort to maintain, update, standardize, archive, and
aggregate datasets, to ensure proper valorization of alien species data and information
before they become obsolete or lost.
Keywords: checklists, data interoperability, data management plan, introduced species, non-indigenous, non-
native, pest species, standards
Sound decision-making to minimize the risk associated with the
introduction of alien species requires accurate and up-to-date
data and the knowledge derived from them. These data feed
into a wide range of processes to tackle problematic invasive
alien species and are needed to develop an appropriate, evidence-
based response (Table 1). Horizon scanning (the systematic
examination of future potential threats and opportunities,
leading to their prioritization), risk assessment, risk management,
early detection and rapid response all depend on accurate and
accessible data [1–4]. So, although alien species data are little
diﬀerent from data on other species, the demands we place on
these data are considerable and speciﬁc.
Current invasive alien species policies depend on the
availability and quality of data. For example, the EU regulation
no. 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species , requires member
states to report on the status of invasive alien species of
Union concern and their progress in managing them, likewise
similar regulations exist in other countries, such as the
USA . Responsible authorities need access to timely and
validated data and they need to report this in a standardized
way, so it can be collated nationally and internationally.
Within the EU, the European Alien Species Information
Network (EASIN) [7,8] has been developed to this end,
including a mechanism for quality assurance, safeguarding and
Mitigating and preventing biological invasions present
particular challenges with regard to the quality, relevance and
scope of data sources and infrastructure . The numerous
origins of the data and broad taxonomic scope, combined with
the global geographic extent and input from diverse disciplines
make proper handling of alien species data diﬃcult, but also
necessary. With this perspective, we gathered database managers,
data users, data generators and biodiversity informatics
specialists to outline how alien species data can be made more
useful, taking into account the peculiarities and applications
of such data. This resulted in seven recommendations, which,
if followed, would improve the use of alien species data
for research, policy and management purposes. Some of
these recommendations are not unique to alien species data,
but their impact would be particularly signiﬁcant in this
TABLE 1 | Data/information categories and their invasive alien species-related
Alien species checklists Horizon scanning (e.g., )
Selection of species for risk assessment (e.g., )
Analysis of pathways of introduction and spread (e.g.,
Feeding indicators for policy evaluation (e.g., [63–65])
Occurrence data of
alien and native species
Species distribution models (e.g., [66,67])
Niche and occupancy modelingRisk modeling and risk
mapping (e.g., )
Impact research (e.g., [69,70])
Early warning and rapid response programs (e.g.,
Climate data Niche and occupancy modeling
Climate matching (e.g., )
Genetic data Species identiﬁcation (e.g., [71,73])
Early detection through e-DNA (e.g., )
Data on management
Risk management (e.g., )
Evaluation of effectiveness of control actions
Cost-beneﬁt analysis of control actions (e.g., [74,75])
Assessment of non-target effects of control actions
Correspondence A workshop titled Data for invasive species
research, policy making and management was organized in
Brussels in 2016 with representatives from sixteen European
countries and the United States. The attendees were from
the European Alien Challenge COST1Action, from important
institutions and projects related to alien species data such as
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 2June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN),
Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe
(DAISIE), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF),
Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN), Centre
for Agriculture and Biosciences International Invasive Species
Compendium (CABI–ISC), and the Biodiversity Information
Standards organization (formerly known as the Taxonomic
Databases Working Group and referred to by the acronym
TDWG). Eﬀort was made to balance participant representation
in terms of gender, country of origin within Europe and
taxonomic and habitat interests (terrestrial, freshwater and
The workshop consisted of talks and participatory exercises
on four main invasive alien species themes: risk assessment,
horizon scanning, management and monitoring. For each of
these themes, participants reﬂected on the data needs and
requirements (Table 1), the data sources they commonly use,
and the existing data standards. Materials from the workshop
have been deposited in an open repository . Conclusions
reported by breakout groups were reﬁned and supplemented in
facilitated plenary discussion. Particular attention was paid to the
perspectives of both the data publishers and data users.
During the workshop a number of opportunities for
facilitating proper use and valorization of alien species data was
identiﬁed and these resulted in the recommendations presented
below and summarized in Table 2.
3. CREATE DATA MANAGEMENT PLANS
A DMP describes how the information generated by a project
will be handled both during and after it is generated. These plans
deﬁne responsibilities; aim to avoid data loss and incompatibility
by indicating how data will be preserved and formatted; stipulate
what metadata are required to understand the data; and consider
data sharing options, including licensing .
Such plans are a means to improve data management and are
now commonly required by funding agencies. The US National
Science Foundation has required them since 2010  and
in 2013 the European Commission launched a pilot on open
research data requiring a DMP in the ﬁrst 6 months of the project
. The DMP approach also encourages journals to change their
policies toward the archiving of data, though it is taking time
for the whole scientiﬁc community to embrace these changes
[15,16]. Typical minimum sections of a DMP are: (i) What type
of data and metadata are expected? (ii) Which standards are
used for alien species data? (iii) How should data be shared? (iv)
How should data be permanently preserved? Researchers new to
writing a DMP should refer to their institutional and funding
agency guidelines if any, and, with respect to invasive species
data, recommendations for ecologists [6,17].
Strictly speaking, each recommended action could be
implemented without the need to compile a DMP. However,
preparing and agreeing upon a DMP ensures a holistic
approach to data management and increases its openness and
accountability, while also answering the needs from funding
agencies and institutional data policies , so we recommend
4. DOCUMENT THROUGH METADATA
Good metadata provide information on provenance, scope,
methods, limitations, data formats and units to facilitate correct
data use, as well as license and contact information. USGS’
Data Management Web site2lists multiple tools and best
practices for metadata creation. Several metadata standards
for biodiversity data are available: such as Ecological Markup
Language (EML ) adopted by GBIF ; the INSPIRE
directive framework (Infrastructure for Spatial Information
in Europe)3, which describes geospatial data and the Data
Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT)4, to describe datasets. We have
not identiﬁed any speciﬁc metadata standards for alien species
data and recommend the use of the metadata standards above,
for which tools and services are already available . An
example of a tool for metadata standardization is the desktop
application Morpho5, which guides users through the creation
of EML . Morpho can interface with a MetaCat registry
to provide a searchable catalog of ecological datasets. This
technology is used by both the DataONE repository6and
the European Biological Observations Network (EU BON)
. Creating metadata may seem secondary to primary
data curation, but metadata are essential to ensure the data
TABLE 2 | Seven recommendations for improving the usefulness of alien species data.
1 Create and implement data management plans to deﬁne the alien species data life-cycle, good data quality and metadata, standardization, data sharing options,
and long-term data preservation.
2 Describe alien species data through metadata, so users can understand their scope and limitations, and use metadata standards (EML, INSPIRE) to facilitate
3 Improve interoperability and sustainability of existing and new alien species information sources by exposing the data they contain through standard exchange
4 Format data using existing standards (Darwin Core, GISIN) and engage in their development through TDWG.
5 Adopt controlled vocabularies to further increase interoperability of data and engage with TDWG to make these compatible with existing standards.
6 Increase data availability by making alien species data openly accessible as soon as possible after collection.
7 Ensure long-term preservation of alien species data by archiving these in existing data repositories (GBIF, Zenodo).
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 3June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
can be discovered and used in the long term . In the
context of alien species data, improved access to metadata
could enhance the speed with which data are found and
5. IMPROVED INTEROPERABILITY OF
Information on alien species is scattered among a multitude of
sources, including databases; peer-reviewed and gray literature;
unpublished research projects and institutional datasets [8,
24]. Important international sources of these data include
the 2000 Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) of the
IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) ; the
2004 Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN);
and the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership
(GIASIP), as well as global information providers such as the
CABI Invasive Species Compendium (ISC) and the Global
Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS). Any new
initiative to collate data needs to consider its role and deﬁne
its niche within a complex environment of global, continental,
national and regional data repositories [7,26].
Almost any eﬀort to compile and harmonize data from these
sources is impeded by diﬀerences in ﬁeld names, deﬁnitions,
and taxonomy, as well as access and license restrictions [3,27].
The use of common standards for all these aspects can improve
the interoperability of these data sources: their data can be
more eﬃciently exchanged, combined, compared, and presented.
In addition, data processing should ideally be performed in
a repeatable way, to increase the eﬃciency of activities such
as horizon scanning and risk assessment. For invasion policies
to be proactive, these activities should be repeated at regular
Online alien species catalogs and invasive alien species
information systems are diﬃcult to keep up-to-date [28,29], yet
they provide a wide variety of valuable information. Funding for
these initiatives has been sporadic at best  and is often time-
limited . Thus relevant information stored and managed
within such initiatives become quickly out-dated, and eﬀorts
to keep them updated are often suddenly discontinued. This
tends to spread errors to other systems that are populated with
data from such sources, particularly if provenance is poorly
tracked. As such, the current process restricts alien species
data exchange, aggregation, interoperability and even rescue.
Technological advances have boosted the number of initiatives
, but also increased the data’s volume and complexity [23,31–
33]. A holistic approach to complex biological questions requires
more from data than a traditional reductionist approach, as
demonstrated by the success of the Gene Ontology . Yet
this poses additional challenges of ensuring data quality, data
curation, interoperability and future-prooﬁng against obsolete
technology and increasing data volumes . Technological
change promises many improvements in data collection, with
systems such as smartphones equipped with built-in GPS, image
capture, external sensors, and automated and expert validation
. Also, advances in species detection through environmental
DNA, such as those of Dejean et al. , need support to be
included within alien species initiatives.
We recommend that alien species databases work together to
follow common standards and that these standards are further
developed for emerging data streams.
6. FORMAT DATA USING EXISTING
Within the scope of a single dataset, data only need to be
formatted consistently to be usable. However, to combine
datasets for broad-scale analysis, a community-deﬁned exchange
format or standard is required to allow data interoperability.
Among the qualities of a “good standard” are that it be
readable (by both humans and machines), simple, learnable and
The alien species research community is not universally aware
of biodiversity informatics standards, where they come from
and how they can be extended. Standards for the exchange of
biodiversity data, including alien species data, are developed,
discussed and promoted by the Biodiversity Information
Standards organization, TDWG . This organization is the
guardian of Darwin Core, the most widely adopted standard
to exchange biodiversity information related to species . By
following these standards, data managers can avoid duplication
of eﬀort and mistakes. Furthermore, the organization can
give advice and support for updating existing standards and
proposing new ones. It is recommended that the invasive alien
species community continue to engage in TDWG, both to adopt
standards for common terms and to establish standards speciﬁc
to invasion biology.
7. ADOPT CONTROLLED VOCABULARIES
FOR FOUR ALIEN SPECIES PROPERTIES
In addition to a standard format to exchange data, specialist
communities often also require further control on the values
of terms to increase interoperability. This can be achieved by
adopting controlled vocabularies. This not only means that data
can be merged, but also contributes to the normative deﬁnition
of a term.
Four alien species properties were identiﬁed that are either
missing from Darwin Core or lacking a reference to a
recommended controlled vocabulary. These are introduction
pathway, degree of establishment, impact mechanism, and
species status. For each of these, vocabularies exist outside
Darwin Core, yet these currently exist as frameworks and require
further work to be developed into standards.
For pathway terminology, the need for a consistent
classiﬁcation, hierarchy, and terminology has long been
recognized [39–41]. Meanwhile, a standardized hierarchical
pathway classiﬁcation was adopted by parties to the Convention
of Biological Diversity  and is being applied to existing
A framework for the degree of establishment has been
presented by Blackburn et al. . This hierarchical
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 4June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
classiﬁcation provides a terminology for populations at
diﬀerent points in the invasion process (casual/introduced,
alien, naturalized/established, invasive) and allows expression
of the range of establishments from those organisms only kept
in cultivation or captivity through to full naturalization and
For alien species impact, a classiﬁcation of categories based
on the magnitude of environmental impacts was developed by
Blackburn et al. , and has been adopted by the IUCN in 2016.
However, for impacts other than environmental, such as socio-
economic, plant health, human health and animal health, no
comprehensive overview is available, but several protocols have
been developed for risk assessment that can provide inspiration
for classiﬁcations (see  for an overview).
Standards from the trade and agriculture sectors can be
useful in describing species status, for example, the International
Plant Protection Conventions International Standard for
Phytosanitary Measures: speciﬁcally, IPSM 87, Determining
pest status in an area; and IPSM 68, Guidelines for surveillance.
We recommend these controlled vocabularies are expressed
in a machine-readable format and are referenced from the
appropriate terms in Darwin Core. This is in line with the
recommendations of the GBIF Task Group on Data Fitness for
use in Research into Invasive Alien Species .
Additionally, controlled vocabularies might prove helpful
in the dissemination of information on species management
. Good examples are the Global Eradication and Response
Database  and the Database of Island Invasive Species
Eradications . The documentation of management actions
in the ﬁeld and the storage of these data are key to performing
cost-beneﬁt analyses of management measures.
8. INCREASE DATA AVAILABILITY
Much has already been written about the methods and needs
for open data publication [3,17,50]. Beyond the good
intentions, Invasivesnet is a developing global association for
open knowledge and open data on alien species . This
association will facilitate greater understanding, communication,
and improved management of biological invasions globally,
by developing a sustainable network of networks for eﬀective
knowledge exchange. The association fosters tool development
and cyberinfrastructure for the collection, management and
dissemination of data and information on alien species from
a range of sources (e.g., research, citizen science). The key
point is that data should be shared and standardized to ensure
interoperability . In the case of species observation data
a straightforward solution is to publish through a repository
such as GBIF or the Ocean Biogeographic Information System
(OBIS), as it ensures adherence to a minimum of common
There can be little doubt that data sharing using community
standards and adequate metadata are of beneﬁt to research and
society in general . Yet motivating good data management
is not easy when practitioners are not rewarded by their
institutions. However, this is changing [54,55], particular with
the support of aspirational statements such as the Berlin9and
Bouchout10 declarations, which show the willingness of some
institutions and individuals to change. Also, there are now
policy initiatives in place, such as the EU INSPIRE directive11
or the United States Administration’s Open Data Policy12, 13, to
mandate harmonization of spatial data.
9. ENSURE LONG-TERM DATA
Under ideal circumstances databases would have funding for
maintenance and updating for as long as they are useful, however,
this is unrealistic. Furthermore, the end of a project is the wrong
time to consider the long-term persistence of data [29,56].
Data actively being curated are often best maintained close to
their source, however, longevity can be built-in to procedures by
periodically depositing data in an open repository, not just on a
personal or university website. Hence, data are protected from
catastrophic events, human attrition, and the slow degradation
of obsolescent hardware, which is the fate of much data . If a
publication is based upon a speciﬁc dataset it is good practice to
deposit that precise version in a repository.
Not all repositories are the same, for example the Dryad14
and Zenodo15 repositories are general-purpose repositories able
to accept data in ad hoc formats, not necessarily formatted
to community standards. They provide ﬂexibility, however,
repositories dedicated to one data type provide much greater
opportunities for integration due to their enforcement of
standards. Examples of such repositories are GBIF and GenBank
. Repositories also diﬀer in their ability to embargo the
release of data and in the licensing options. We recommend that
considerable a priori thought goes into data preservation and the
choice of repository.
Many alien species databases have emerged either before
or without knowledge of existing standards for database
management in biodiversity informatics. Furthermore, existing
standards do not adequately cover all the needs of the research
domain. Not all ecologists have strong information technology
skills, nor are experts in technology-mediated collaboration,
shared instrumentation or standardized data collection .
In the rapidly changing information technology landscape,
ecologists and conservationists cannot be expected to keep up
with developments in software and data standards. This should
encourage data managers, wherever possible, to simplify the tools
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 5June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
created for ecological practitioners. This becomes more pressing
as new technologies are used to provide data on alien species.
Many data management issues are common to all biodiversity
data, yet species native range, introduction pathway, degree of
establishment and impact mechanism are speciﬁc to alien species.
Additionally, the need for fast dissemination of information
and data is typical to alien species, in particular early detection
and rapid response programs. Proactive responses to biological
invasions require repeatable workﬂows for horizon scanning
and risk assessment . Adoption of standards and controlled
vocabularies for this information can boost the usefulness for
alien species research, policy-making and policy evaluation.
There is a need for the acceptance of common data standards
that take into consideration the needs of both data collectors
and diverse data users, from the science community to the end
Work is required with the research and education
communities and the standards authorities to ensure that
suggested standards are shepherded through acceptance and
implementation and that these standards are introduced early
within the education of young scientists and promoted among
those in the biodiversity community, so that they are adopted
widely. Improving core biodiversity standards for their content
and usefulness for alien species data will allow the automation
of common activities needed to tackle biological invasions.
We call for considerable eﬀort toward maintaining, updating,
standardizing, and archiving or incorporating current data sets,
to ensure proper valorization of alien species data and resulting
information before they become obsolete or lost.
QG, ACC, JP, SV, and TA wrote the original brieﬁng note,
which outlined the idea of a workshop on biodiversity data
interoperability for invasive species. SV, QG, TA, PD, AD were the
local organizers of the Workshop and prepared the initial draft of
the paper. HR is Chair of the COST Action and has supported
and attended the workshop. AS participated in the workshop,
contributed to the writing of the paper, and arranged for the
initial peer review of the manuscript through the U.S. Geological
Survey. All other authors contributed to the writing of the paper
and attended the workshop.
This article is based upon work from COST Action TD1209
ALIEN Challenge, supported by COST (European Cooperation
in Science and Technology) www.cost.eu. JP was partly
supported by the long-term research development project no.
We also thank the Belgian Biodiversity Platform, funded by the
Belgian Science Policy Oﬃce, for the use of their facilities, and
the U.S. Geological Survey, for previous peer review. Any use
of trade, product, or ﬁrm names in this article is for descriptive
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
1. McGeoch MA, Spear D, Kleynhans EJ, Marais E. Uncertainty in invasive alien
species listing. Ecol Appl. (2012) 22:959–71. doi: 10.1890/11-1252.1
2. Roy HE, Peyton J, Aldridge DC, Bantock T, Blackburn TM, Britton R,
et al. Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to
threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Global Change Biol. (2014) 20:3859–71.
3. Groom QJ, Desmet P, Vanderhoeven S, Adriaens T. The importance of open
data for invasive alien species research, policy and management. Manage Biol
Invasions (2015) 6:119–25. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.02
4. Zenetos A, Çinar ME, Crocetta F, Golani D, Rosso A, Servello G,
et al. Uncertainties and validation of alien species catalogues: the
Mediterranean as an example. Estuarine Coast Shelf Sci. (2017) 191:171–87.
5. European Union. Regulation (EU) No. 1143/2014 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction
and spread of invasive alien species. Oﬃcial J Eur Union (2014) 317:35–55.
6. Executive Oﬃce of the President. Safeguarding the nation from the impacts of
invasive species. Federal Register (2016) 81:88609–14.
7. Katsanevakis S, Bogucarskis K, Gatto F, Vandekerkhove J, Deriu I, Cardoso
AC, et al. Building the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN):
a novel approach for the exploration of distributed alien species data.
Bioinvasions Records (2012) 1:235–45. doi: 10.3391/bir.2012.1.4.01
8. Katsanevakis S, Deriu I, D’Amico F, Nunes AL, Pelaez Sanchez S, Crocetta
F, et al. European alien species information network (EASIN): supporting
European policies and scientiﬁc research. Manage Biol Invasions (2015)
6:147–57. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.05
9. TsiamisK, Cardoso AC, Gervasini E. The European Alien Species Information
Network on the Convention on Biological Diversity pathways categorization.
NeoBiota (2017) 2:21–29. doi: 10.3897/neobiota.32.9429
10. Latombe G, Pyšek P, Jeschke JM, Blackburn TM, Bacher S, Capinha C, et al.
A vision for global monitoring of biological invasions. Biol Conserv. (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.013. [Epub ahead of print].
11. Groom Q, Adriaens T, Desmet P, Wever AD, Vanderhoeven S. Resources
from the Workshop “Data for Invasive Species Research, Policy Making and
Management”. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.261743
12. McLure M, Level AV, Cranston CL, Oehlerts B, Culbertson M. Data curation:
a study of researcher practices and needs. Libraries Acad. (2014) 14:139–64.
13. National Science Foundation. Press Release 10-077 Scientists Seeking NSF
Funding Will Soon be Required to Submit Data Management Plans.
(2010). Available online at: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_
id=116928 (Accessed 2 October, 2010).
14. European Commission. EC Commission Recommendation of 17.7.2012 on
Access to and Preservation of Scientiﬁc Information. (2012). Available online
recommendation-access- and-preservation- scientiﬁc-information_en.pdf
(Accessed 4 November, 2016).
15. Roche DG, Kruuk LEB, Lanfear R, Binning SA. Public data archiving in
ecology and evolution: how well are we doing? PLoS Biol. (2015) 13:e1002295.
16. Vision TJ. Open data and the social contract of scientiﬁc publishing. Bioscience
(2010) 60:330. doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.5.2
17. White EP, Baldridge E, Brym ZT, Locey KJ, McGlinn DJ, Supp SR. Nine
simple ways to make it easier to (re) use your data. Ideas Ecol Evol.
(2013) 6:1–10. doi: 10.4033/iee.2013.6b.6.f
18. Fegraus EH, Andelman S, Jones MB, Schildhauer M. Maximizing the value
of ecological data with structured metadata: an introduction to ecological
metadata language (EML) and principles for metadata creation. Bull Ecol Soc
Am. (2005) 86:158–68. doi: 10.1890/0012-9623(2005)86[158:MTVOED]2.0.
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 6June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
19. Robertson T, Dring M, Guralnick R, Bloom D, Wieczorek J, Braak K,
et al. The GBIF integrated publishing toolkit: facilitating the eﬃcient
publishing of biodiversity data on the internet. PLoS ONE (2014) 9:e102623.
20. Oggioni A, Carrara P, Kliment T, Peterseil J, Schentz H. Monitoring of
environmental status through long term series: data management system
in the EnvEurope project. In: EnviroInfo. Aachen: Shaker Verlag (2012). p.
21. Higgins D, Berkley C, Jones MB. Managing heterogeneous ecological data
using Morpho. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Scientiﬁc and Statistical Database Management. IEEE (2002). p. 69–76.
22. Smirnova L, Mergen P, Groom Q, Wever AD, Penev L, Stoev P, et al. Data
sharing tools adopted by the European Biodiversity Observation Network
Project. Res Ideas Outcomes (2016) 2:e9390. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9390
23. Michener WK. Meta-information concepts for ecological data management.
Ecol Inform. (2006) 1:3–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2005.08.004
24. Roy HE, Preston CD, Harrower CA, Rorke SL, Noble D, Sewell J,
et al. GB Non-native Species Information Portal: documenting the arrival
of non-native species in Britain. Biol Invasions (2014) 16:2495–505.
25. Pagad S, Genovesi P, Carnevali L, Scalera R, Clout M. IUCN SSC Invasive
Species Specialist Group: invasive alien species information management
supporting practitioners, policy makers and decision takers. Manage Biol
Invasions (2015) 6:127–35. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.03
26. Katsanevakis S, Genovesi P, Gaiji S, Hvid HN, Roy H, Nunes AL, et al.
Implementing the European policies for alien species: networking, science,
and partnership in a complex environment. Manage Biol Invasions (2013)
4:3–6. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2013.4.1.02
27. Joppa LN, O’Connor B, Visconti P, Smith C, Geldmann J, Hoﬀmann
M, et al. Filling in biodiversity threat gaps. Science (2016) 352:416–8.
28. Jarnevich CS, Simpson A, Graham JJ, Newman GJ, Bargeron CT. Running a
network on a shoestring: the Global Invasive Species Information Network.
Manage Biol Invasions (2015) 6:137–46. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.04
29. Olenin S, Narius A, Minchin D, David M, Galil B, Gollasch S, et al. Making
non-indigenous species information systems practical for management and
useful for research: an aquatic perspective. Biol Conserv. (2014) 173:98–107.
30. Roy H, Pocock M, Preston C, Roy D, Savage J, Tweddle J, et al. Understanding
Citizen Science and Environmental Monitoring: Final Report on Behalf of
UK Environmental Observation Framework. NERC/Centre for Ecology and
31. August T, Harvey M, Lightfoot P, Kilbey D, Papadopoulos T, Jepson P.
Emerging technologies for biological recording. Biol J Linnean Soc. (2015)
115:731–49. doi: 10.1111/bij.12534
32. Dejean T, Valentini A, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Bellemain E, Miaud C. Improved
detection of an alien invasive species through environmental DNA barcoding:
the example of the American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus. J Appl Ecol.
(2012) 49:953–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02171.x
33. McGeoch MA, Groom QJ, Pagad S, Petrosyan V, Ruiz G, Wilson J. Data
Fitness for Use in Research on Alien and Invasive Species. Copenhagen: GBIF
Secretariat (2016). Available online at: http://www.gbif.org/resource/82958
34. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al.
Gene ontology: tool for the uniﬁcation of biology. Nat Genet. (2000) 25:25–9.
35. Simpson A, Jarnevich C, Madsen J, Westbrooks R, Fournier C, Mehrhoﬀ L,
et al. Invasive species information networks: collaboration at multiple scales
for prevention, early detection, and rapid response to invasive alien species.
Biodiversity (2009) 10:5–13. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2009.9712839
36. Bos B. What Is a Good Standard? An Essay on W3C’s Design Principles.
(2003). Available online at: https://www.w3.org/People/Bos/DesignGuide/
37. Berendsohn W, Güntsch A, Hoﬀmann N, Kohlbecker A, Luther K, Müller
A. Biodiversity information platforms: from standards to interoperability.
ZooKeys (2011) 150:71–87. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2166
38. Wieczorek J, Bloom D, Guralnick R, Blum S, Döring M, Giovanni R, et al.
Darwin core: an evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard.
PLoS ONE (2012) 7:e29715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029715
39. Hulme PE, Bacher S, Kenis M, Klotz S, Kühn I, Minchin D, et al. Grasping at
the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into
policy. J Appl Ecol. (2008) 45:403–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01442.x
40. Essl F, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Booy O, Brundu G, Brunel S, et al. Crossing
frontiers in tackling pathways of biological invasions. Bioscience (2015)
65:769. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv082
41. Pagad S, Hayes K, Katsanevakis S, Costello MJ. World Register of
Introduced Marine Species (WRIMS) (2015). Available online at: http://www.
42. Convention on Biological Diversity. Pathways of Introduction of Invasive
Species, Their Prioritization, and Management (2014). Available online at:
43. Saul WC, Roy HE, Booy O, Carnevali L, Chen HJ, Genovesi P, et al. Assessing
patterns in introduction pathways of alien species by linking major invasion
data bases. J Appl Ecol. (2017) 54:657–69. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12819
44. Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarošík V, et al. A
proposed uniﬁed framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol. (2011)
26:333–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023
45. Blackburn TM, Essl F, Evans T, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Kühn I, et al. A uniﬁed
classiﬁcation of alien species based on the magnitude of their environmental
impacts. PLoS Biol. (2014) 12:e1001850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001850
46. McGeoch MA, Genovesi P, Bellingham PJ, Costello MJ, McGrannachan
C, Sheppard A. Prioritizing species, pathways, and sites to achieve
conservation targets for biological invasion. Biol Invasions (2016) 18:299–314.
47. Hulme PE, Pyšek P, Nentwig W, Vilà M. Will threat of biological
invasions unite the European Union? Science (2009) 324:40–1.
48. Kean J, Tobin P, Lee D, Smith G, Stringer L, Vargas RF, et al. Global Eradication
and Response Database (2016). Available online at: http://b3.net.nz/gerda
49. Island Conservation, Coastal Conservation Action Laboratory UCSC, IUCN
SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland and Landcare
Research New Zealand. DIISE. The Database of Island Invasive Species
Eradications (2015). Available online at: http://diise.islandconservation.org
50. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak
A, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientiﬁc data management and
stewardship. Sci Data (2016) 3:160018. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
51. Lucy FE, Roy H, Simpson A, Carlton JT, Hanson JM, Magellan K,
et al. INVASIVESNET towards an international association for open
knowledge on invasive alien species. Manage Biol Invasions (2016) 7:131–9.
52. Faith D, Collen B, Ariño A, Koleﬀ PKP, Guinotte J, Kerr J, et al. Bridging the
biodiversity data aps: recommendations to meet users’ data needs. Biodiversity
Inform. (2013) 8:41–58. doi: 10.17161/bi.v8i2.4126
53. Borgman CL. The conundrum of sharing research data. J Am Soc Inform Sci
Technol. (2012) 63:1059–78. doi: 10.1002/asi.22634
54. Donovan C. Introduction: future pathways for science policy and research
assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Sci Public Policy (2007)
34:538. doi: 10.3152/030234207X256529
55. Taylor J. The assessment of research quality in UK universities: peer review
or metrics? Brit J Manage. (2011) 22:202–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.
56. Maday C, Moysan M. Records management for scientiﬁc data. Arch
Manuscripts (2014) 42:190–2. doi: 10.1080/01576895.2014.911686
57. Gibney E, Van Noorden R. Scientists losing data at a rapid rate. Nature (2013)
504. doi: 10.1038/nature.2013.14416
58. Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell
J, et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. (2013) 41:D36. doi: 10.1093/nar/
59. Ribes D, Finholt TA. The long now of technology infrastructure: articulating
tensions in development. J Assoc Inform Syst. (2009) 10:375.
60. Vanderhoeven S, Adriaens T,Desmet P, Strubbe D,Backeljau T, Barbier Y, et al.
Tracking Invasive Alien Species (TrIAS): building a data-driven framework to
inform policy. Res Ideas Outcomes (2017) 3:e13414. doi: 10.3897/rio.3.e13414
61. NOBANIS. Invasive Alien Species: Pathway Analysis and Horizon Scanning
for Countries in Northern Europe. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 7June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13
Groom et al. Making Alien Species Data Useful
62. Andow DA. Pathways-based risk assessment of exotic species
invasions. In: Carlton J, editor. Invasive Species: Vectors and
Management Strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press (2003).
63. Rabitsch W, Essl F, Genovesi P, Scalera R. Invasive Alien Species Indicators in
Europe-a Review of Streamlining European Biodiversity (SEBI) Indicator 10.
EEA-Technical Report, 15/2012 (2012).
64. Armon RH, Zenetos A. Invasive alien species and their indicators. In:
Armon RH, Hänninen O, editors. Environmental Indicators. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands (2015). p. 147–73. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-94
65. Rabitsch W, Genovesi P, Scalera R, Biała K, Josefsson M, Essl F. Developing
and testing alien species indicators for Europe. J Nat Conserv. (2016) 29:89–96.
66. Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Miaud C. Prediction and validation of
the potential global distribution of a problematic alien invasive
species—the American bullfrog. Divers Distribut. (2007) 13:476–85.
67. Strubbe D, Matthysen E, Graham CH. Assessing the potential impact
of invasive ring-necked parakeets Psittacula krameri on native
nuthatches Sitta europeae in Belgium. J Appl Ecol. (2010) 47:549–57.
68. Jiménez-Valverde A, Peterson AT, Soberón J, Overton J, Aragón P, Lobo JM.
Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol Invasions (2011)
13:2785–97. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-9963-4
69. Elzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW, Gibbs JP. Monitoring Plant and
Animal Populations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science (2001).
70. Marsh DM, Trenham PC. Current trends in plant and animal population
monitoring. Conserv Biol. (2008) 22:647–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.
71. Adriaens T, Baert K, Breyne P, Casaer J, Devisscher S, Onkelinx T, et al.
Successful eradication of a suburban Pallas’s squirrel Callosciurus erythraeus
(Pallas 1779) (Rodentia, Sciuridae) population in Flanders (northern
Belgium). Biol Invasions (2015) 17:2517–26.
72. Faulkner KT, Robertson MP, Rouget M, Wilson JR. A simple, rapid
methodology for developing invasive species watch lists. Biol Conserv. (2014)
179:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.014
73. Beauchamp VB, Koontz SM, Suss C, Hawkins C, Kyde KL, Schnase JL. An
introduction to Oplismenus undulatifolius (Ard.) Roem. & Schult.(wavyleaf
basketgrass), a recent invader in Mid-Atlantic forest understories. J Torrey Bot
Soc. (2013) 140:391–413. doi: 10.3159/TORREY-D-13-00033.1
74. Panzacchi M, Cocchi R, Genovesi P, Bertolino S. Population control of
coypu Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication in UK: a
cost-beneﬁt analysis. Wildlife Biol. (2007) 13:159–71. doi: 10.2981/0909-
75. Rajmis S, Thiele J, Marggraf RA. Cost-beneﬁt analysis of controlling
giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) in Germany using a choice
experiment approach. NeoBiota (2016) 31:19–41. doi: 10.3897/neobiota.
Conﬂict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or ﬁnancial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conﬂict of interest.
Copyright © 2017 Groom, Adriaens, Desmet, Simpson, De Wever, Bazos, Cardoso,
Charles, Christopoulou, Gazda, Helmisaari, Hobern, Josefsson, Lucy, Marisavljevic,
Oszako, Pergl, Petrovic-Obradovic, Prévot, Ravn, Richards, Roques, Roy, Rozenberg,
Scalera, Tricarico, Trichkova, Vercayie, Zenetos and Vanderhoeven. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics | www.frontiersin.org 8June 2017 | Volume 3 | Article 13