Written by Dr Quentin Groom, National Botanical Garden, Meise, Belgium
www.botanicgarden.be
Himalayan Balsam image c. GBNNSS
Invasive species can be a serious threat to the conservation of native biodiversity, but damaging biological invasions are not inevitable if an invasion is caught early. To stop an invasion you need to be prepared; you need to know what to look out for; you need to find the onset quickly; you must know how to control it and you need to monitor the success of the control measures. All of these requirements depend on access to biological observation data, not just from small areas, but potentially from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, although most countries perceive themselves as a victim of biological invasions, most are also a source. It is not only our native flora that is a potential problem for other countries, the UK is a reservoir of grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), least yellow-sorrel (Oxalis exilis) and New Zealand willowherb (Epilobium brunnescens) to name just a few. None of these are native to the UK, but each is well established in the UK and is a potential invader of our neighbours.
For these reasons I think we have a responsibility to conservation, to share data on our invasive organisms, just as we need data in return. Nevertheless, the current situation is that most biological observations of invasive species are either hidden, obfuscated or obstructively licenced. There are good reasons to protect the locations of a few species, but this is often used as an excuse to restrict access to everything. The way we react to biological invasions is just as important from a conservation perspective as protecting persecuted species. Only with access to data can proportionate responses be reasoned and applied.
Being open with data is not giving data away. Some organisations are finding ways to fund data collection, without having to use data as a form of currency. The guardians and users of data should ensure that the providers of data are cited. People and organisations who work on data collection should get adequate acknowledgement, just as data managers should ensure that the providence of data is tracked. Providence not only facilitates acknowledgement, but it also underpins the credibility of science. Recently scientists have conceded that many, if not most, scientific studies cannot be reproduced (Ioannidis 2005). This recognition has led many scientific journals and funding agencies to adopt open data policies. If conservation science is to be respected as rigorous and self-critical, we must prove our assertions with data.
Fortunately, attitudes towards data sharing are changing. Funders and the grassroots recorders are realising the advantages of openness. Being open with data is not without its difficulties, but the downsides far outweigh the problems, particularly if we are serious about reducing the impacts of invasive species on our biodiversity.
Reference: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124